Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 202, to determine whether New York or North Carolina law applies. See Arneil v. Ramsey, 550 F.2d 774, 779 (2d Cir.1977); Gorlin v. Bond Richman & Co., 706 F.Supp. 236, 239 (S.D.N.Y.1989). CPLR 202 requires the Court to apply the shorter of the two applicable statutes of limitation, because Barnett is not a New York resident. The North Carolina period of limitations for contract actions is three years, which is shorter than New York’s six year period. See N.C.Gen. Stat. § 1-52(1). The accrual of a claim under ERISA is determined by federal law. Tolle v. Carroll Touch, Inc., 977 F.2d 1129, 1138 (7th Cir.1992); Smith v. Rochester Tel. Bus. Marketing Corp., 786 F.Supp. 293, 306 (W.D.N.Y.1992), aff'd, 40 F.3d 1236 (2d Cir.1994); see also Keating v. Carey, 706 F.2d 377, 382 (2d Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). A claim for benefits under ERISA accrues when 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that federal law determines definition of executory contract but that state law determines whether a material breach of the contract could occur (B) holding that federal courts sitting in diversity should apply state law that determines the outcome of the case (C) holding that while state law determines the existence of a claim federal law determines when a claim arises for bankruptcy purposes (D) holding for  1983 actions that although state law determines the limitations period federal law determines when the claim arises (E) holding that state law determines when an interest is perfected when interpreting the preference avoidance provision of the bankruptcy act
Output (English): holding that state law determines when an interest is perfected when interpreting the preference avoidance provision of the bankruptcy act