You are here: / / THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE “INSANITY” TOLL OF...
, ,

THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE “INSANITY” TOLL OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO THIS ASSAULT AND FALSE ARREST ACTION AGAINST THE CITY AND POLICE OFFICERS; THE TOLL APPLIES WHEN PERSONS ARE UNABLE TO PROTECT THEIR LEGAL RIGHTS BECAUSE OF AN INABILITY TO FUNCTION IN SOCIETY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department remitted the matter for a determination whether the statute of limitations was tolled because of petitioner’s “insanity” in this assault and false arrest action against the city and police officers:

Pursuant to CPLR 208(a) “[i]f a person entitled to commence an action is under a disability because of . . . insanity at the time the cause of action accrues, and . . . the time otherwise limited [for commencing the action] is less than three years, the time shall be extended by the period of disability.” A toll pursuant to CPLR 208(a) does not toll the necessity of filing a timely notice of claim; rather, it tolls only the time in which to apply for leave to serve a late notice of claim … .

CPLR 208(a) provides no definition of the term “insanity” … . However, the Court of Appeals has concluded that the insanity tolling provision should be narrowly construed and is available “only [to] those individuals who are unable to protect their legal rights because of an over-all inability to function in society” … . “[T]he condition of an individual’s mental capabilities is largely a factual question” … . “The task of determining whether the tolling provision [of CPLR 208] applies ‘is a pragmatic one, which necessarily involves consideration of all surrounding facts and circumstances relevant to the claimant’s ability to safeguard his or her legal rights'” … .

Here, the record before us presents a question of fact as to whether the petitioner was “unable to protect [his] legal rights because of an over-all inability to function in society” during the relevant period, as well as the duration of the alleged insanity … . Matter of Sinclair v City of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op 00453, Second Dept 1-29-25

Practice Point: CPLR 208(a) provides an “insanity toll” of the statute of limitations for persons unable to protect their legal rights because of an inability to function in society.

 

You might also like
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DETERMINED THE PROVISION OF AN “AGREEMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF STOCK” WHICH CALLED FOR RECOVERY OF DOUBLE ATTORNEYS FEES BY THE PREVAILING PARTY IN LITIGATION WAS AN UNENFORCEABLE PENALTY (SECOND DEPT).
THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION RELIED ON BUSINESS RECORDS DESCRIBED IN AN AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF; BUT THE AFFIANT DID NOT LAY A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSION OF THOSE RECORDS IN EVIDENCE; JUDGMENT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
BIOLOGICAL FATHER ESTOPPED FROM ASSERTING PATERNITY.
Lack of Standing Defense Waived If Not Raised In Answer or Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss—Lack of Standing Is Not a Jurisdictional Defect–Sua Sponte Dismissal on that Ground Improper
A DEFAULTING PARTY ADMITS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT; THEREFORE LIABILITY ISSUES SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AT THE INQUEST (SECOND DEPT).
THE REFEREE’S REPORT WAS BASED UPON INFORMATION IN BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT ATTACHED TO THE AFFIDAVIT IN WHICH THE RECORDS WERE DESCRIBED; THE INFORMATION IN THE AFFIDAVIT WAS THEREFORE INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE SERVICE-OF-PROCESS REQUIREMENTS IN CPLR 308 AND 311 ARE JURISDICTIONAL DEFECTS, NOT “TECHNICAL” DEFECTS WHICH CAN BE OVERLOOKED PURSUANT TO CPLR 2001 (SECOND DEPT).
30-DAY TIME TO APPEAL WITH RESPECT TO ALL PARTIES IS TRIGGERED BY THE SERVICE OF THE ORDER OR JUDGMENT WITH WRITTEN NOTICE OF ENTRY BY ANY PARTY (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALTHOUGH THE CHILD’S IMMIGRANT VISA HAD BEEN LOST, THE PROOF DEMONSTRATED... THE DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW YORK VOTING RIGHTS...