period.” Id. at 348, 117 S.Ct. 849. Therefo uits have held the same in a variety of circumstances. See Zerilli-Edelglass v. New York City Transit Auth., 333 F.3d 74, 80 (2d Cir.2003) (“Equitable tolling is generally considered appropriate where ... a plaintiffs medical condition or mental impairment prevented her from proceeding in a timely fashion.”) (citations omitted); Chapman v. ChoiceCare Long Island Term Disability Plan, 288 F.3d 506, 514 (2d Cir.2002) (recognizing mental incapacity as a basis for equitable tolling under ERISA); Brown v. Parkchester S. Condos., 287 F.3d 58, 60 (2d Cir.2002) (Title VII case finding that plaintiff proffered sufficient evidence to warrant a hearing on whether her mental incapacity required tolling); Boos v. Runyon, 201 F.3d 178, 184 (2d Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Canales v. Sullivan, 936 F.2d 755, 756 (2d
holding that 29 cfr  1614105a1 is subject to equitable tolling based on mental illness holding that the 120day filing period is subject to equitable tolling and addressing circumstances warranting equitable tolling holding that where client was abandoned by attorney due to attorneys mental illness equitable tolling may be appropriate holding title vii subject to equitable tolling holding that attorneys mental illness may justify equitable tolling