accrued each time defendant collected the rents and kept them to himself. . . . Plaintiff’s action was therefore timely as to any such proceeds which were retained by defendant during the six years preceding the commencement of the action.” Id. We find Butler persuasive authority with respect to the salary claims in this case. Here, as in Babb and Butler, a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty for failure to pay Marzec’s salary accrued each time Nye failed to pay Marzec his monthly salary. Marzec’s claim is, therefore, timely as to the failure to pay Marzec’s salary and failure to provide an accounting during the three years preceding the filing of this action. See Faulkenbury v. Teachers’ & State Employees’ Ret. Sys. of N.C., 345 N.C. 683, 695, 483 S.E.2d 422, 429-30 (1997) (<HOLDING>); Sadov Realty Corp. v. Shipur H’Shechuna
holding that three denied promotions over the course of three years where the decisions were made by three different selection officials and involved different qualifications were not sufficiently related to constitute a continuing violation holding that defendant dentists were not entitled to summary judgment in malpractice actions commenced more than two years after the relevant dental procedures where factual questions remained as to the plaintiffs diligence holding under continuing wrong doctrine that plaintiffs were allowed  to pursue claims for underpayments for three years before they commenced actions holding that delay for three and onehalf years was unreasonable under rule 60b6 holding that new york statute of limitations for  1983 actions was three years