A genuinely counterintuitive carve-out
Most people assume that a deliberate, intentional injury would get at least as much time to sue as an accidental one. New York's statute actually works the other way. CPLR 214(5), the general three-year personal injury rule, expressly excepts section 215 — and assault, as an intentional tort, falls under CPLR 215(3) instead, with a genuinely shorter one-year deadline.
Why the structure works this way
This isn't a drafting accident. New York groups intentional torts — assault among them — under a separate, shorter one-year limitations category, distinct from the negligence-based personal injury claims that fall under the three-year general rule. The practical result is that someone injured by a deliberate act genuinely has less time to pursue a civil claim than someone injured by ordinary carelessness, which can catch people off guard at exactly the moment they're dealing with the aftermath of an intentional act.
The ordinary rule for minors
Outside of these specific carve-outs, New York's tolling rule for minors is more familiar: the statute of limitations is generally tolled while the injured person is a minor, and they typically have three years from their 18th birthday to bring their own claim.
A real discovery rule for toxic exposure
Under CPLR 214-c, claims involving exposure to a toxic substance generally must be commenced within three years of when the injury was, or reasonably should have been, discovered — not three years from the date of exposure itself, which could otherwise run out before some toxic injuries even become apparent.
A defendant leaving the state can pause the clock
If the person responsible for an injury is absent from New York State for a continuous period, that time is generally not counted toward the statute of limitations — a tolling mechanism aimed at preventing someone from simply leaving the state to run out the clock.
Medical malpractice and continuous treatment
Medical malpractice claims generally fall under the separate 2.5-year rule in CPLR 214-a. New York also recognizes a continuous treatment doctrine, which can extend that period under certain circumstances tied to ongoing treatment by the same provider for the same condition — a genuinely important nuance for anyone whose care continued well past the original incident.