the Agreement was no longer operative. Having failed to establish an affirmative defense that would justify subordinating the Roses’ prior assignment, Am-South holds its assignment subject to the general New York rule, under which, “[a]s between successive assignees of the same chose in action[,] priority in point of time establishes priority of right ... without regard to the date of notification to the debtor.” Rochester Ropes, Inc. v. Scherl, 121 F.2d 852, 852 (2d Cir.1941); see also Cent. Trust Co. of N.Y. v. W. India Improvement Co., 169 N.Y. 314, 323-24, 62 N.E. 387 (1901); Niles v. Mathusa, 162 N.Y. 546, 552, 57 N.E. 184 (1900); Superior Brassiere, 212 N.Y.S. at 475; Carnegie Trust Co. v. Battery Place Realty Co., 67 Misc. 452, 122 N.Y.S. 697, 698 (App. Term., N.Y. County 1910) (<HOLDING>); Art-Camera Pix, Inc. v. Cinecom Corp., 64
holding that a cause of action accrues when the claimant knew or reasonably should have known of the wrong holding that the delivery of an eeoc decision to the former attorney of a claimant did not constitute notice to the claimant holding that a federal cause of action accrues when the plaintiff is aware or should be aware of the existence of and source of the injury not when the potential claimant knows or should know that the injury constitutes a legal wrong holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant recognizing that where two parties claim  to be the owners of the same debt or chose in action the party having the superior title by virtue of his earlier assignment may maintain an action for money had and received against the wrong claimant if the wrong claimant receives the money