## Facts

- In October 1988, Hedda Nussbaum sued her former romantic partner, Joel Steinberg, in New York County under Index No. 23416/88.
- Nussbaum alleged that between 1978 and 1987 Steinberg committed intentional torts against her, including assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Nussbaum filed the civil action after Steinberg was incarcerated following the death of their daughter.
- Steinberg moved for summary judgment, arguing that most alleged torts occurred more than one year before suit and were barred by the statute of limitations applicable to intentional torts.
- Nussbaum responded that the limitations period was tolled under CPLR 208 because Steinberg’s prolonged physical and psychological abuse caused her to suffer “insanity” within the meaning of that statute.
- The court held a hearing to determine whether CPLR 208 applied and, if so, for what period.
- At the hearing, Nussbaum testified to severe physical, emotional, and psychological abuse during the relationship and resulting psychological disorders.
- Nussbaum introduced a police videotape from around the time of the child’s death showing extensive injuries to Nussbaum’s body.
- Nussbaum presented testimony from her treating psychiatrist and a psychological-trauma witness, who testified that Nussbaum suffered severe disorders and was unable to function in society or make decisions about her own life because of the trauma Steinberg inflicted.
- Steinberg presented a retired forensic psychiatrist who opined that Nussbaum never lost the ability to make decisions or leave the relationship, but he acknowledged limited knowledge and experience with psychological trauma and domestic violence.

## Issues

1. Whether Nussbaum’s abuse-related psychological condition constituted “insanity” under CPLR 208.
2. Whether that condition prevented Nussbaum from timely commencing suit, warranting tolling of the one-year statute of limitations for intentional torts.
3. What evidence, including medical testimony, was sufficient to establish the CPLR 208 disability and its duration.

## Decision

- The court, after the evidentiary hearing, determined that Nussbaum’s condition satisfied CPLR 208’s “insanity” standard during the relevant period.
- The court found that Nussbaum’s psychological state, tied to prolonged abuse, left her unable to function and unable to protect or pursue her legal rights within the ordinary limitations period.
- The court applied CPLR 208 to toll the statute of limitations and permitted Nussbaum’s action to proceed notwithstanding the facial time bar.

## Legal Principles

- CPLR 208 tolling for “insanity” turns on functional incapacity: whether the plaintiff’s mental condition made the plaintiff unable to protect legal rights and commence an action in time.
- “Insanity” for CPLR 208 is not confined to institutionalization or a formal adjudication of incompetence; severe mental impairment that disables ordinary functioning can qualify.
- Psychological injury arising from prolonged domestic abuse may constitute CPLR 208 “insanity” when it results in an inability to make independent decisions and pursue litigation.
- The party seeking tolling bears the burden to prove the disabling condition and the period during which it existed, typically through medical testimony and other corroborating evidence.
- In weighing conflicting medical testimony, the court may consider the witness’s clinical familiarity with the type of trauma alleged and the fit between the witness’s background and the condition at issue.
- Tolling extends only for the time the qualifying disability actually prevented timely suit; once the disability ends, the limitations clock resumes.

## Conclusion

In Nussbaum v. Steinberg (Ind. No. 23416/88) (Mar. 6, 1997), the court held, after a hearing, that Nussbaum’s abuse-induced psychological condition met CPLR 208’s “insanity” standard and tolled the one-year statute of limitations for intentional tort claims, allowing her 1988 lawsuit to go forward despite allegations that much of the misconduct occurred years earlier.


Nussbaum v. Steinberg, Ind. No. 23416/88 (March 6, 1997)