Inc. v. Universal Prescription Adm’rs, 131 F.3d 95, 97 (2d Cir.1997). The district court correctly deferred to the bankruptcy court’s factual findings that MALC had failed to document its claims, engaged in delay tactics, and pursued a volume strategy- Second, the appellant argues that the claimants are entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. Judge Sweet handled this question thoroughly and correctly. Under the doctrine of equitable tolling, a court may, under compelling circumstances, make narrow exceptions to the statute of limitations in order “to prevent inequity.” Chao v. Russell P. Le Frois Builder, Inc., 291 F.3d 219, 223 (2d Cir.2002) (quoting Warren v. Garvin, 219 F.3d 111, 113 (2d Cir.2000)); see also Johnson v. Nyack Hosp., 86 F.3d 8, 12 (2d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted). MALC fails
recognizing equitable tolling in the title vii context where the plaintiff has been deceived lulled into inaction actively misled or has in some extraordinary way been prevented from asserting his or her rights quotations and citations omitted holding that mental incapacity is an extraordinary circumstance that may warrant equitable tolling holding that  2244d is subject to equitable tolling in appropriate cases holding equitable tolling appropriate where a party is prevented in some extraordinary way from exercising his rights holding that equitable tolling under  2255 would be allowed if at all only for extraordinary circumstances