di Santo v. New York State Unified Court System

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
PATRICK di SANTO,
Plaintiff,
1:25-CV-1340
v. 	(BKS/DJS)
NEW YORK STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM,
Defendant.
APPEARANCES:
PATRICK di SANTO
Plaintiff, Pro Se
Lenexa, Kansas 66219
DANIEL J. STEWART
United States Magistrate Judge
REPORT-RECOMMENDATION and ORDER
On 	March 	19, 	2026, 	the 	undersigned 	issued 	a 	Report-Recommendation
recommending dismissal of the Complaint with leave to amend because Plaintiff failed
to provide sufficient notice of the factual and legal basis of his claims. 	Dkt. No. 10.
Plaintiff did not file objections to the Report-Recommendation and instead filed an
Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 11, Am. Compl. The District Court has now referred the
Amended Complaint for review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Dkt. No. 12.1
1 Plaintiff has now also filed a Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing. Dkt. No. 13. That request is denied as premature.
Case 1:25-cv-01340-BKS-DJS Document 14 Filed 05/05/26 Page 1 of 5

- 2 -
The legal standard for review under section 1915 was previously outlined in this
Court’s prior decision, Dkt. No. 10 at pp. 1-3, and need not be recounted in detail here.
In summary, this Court’s task under section 1915(e) is to consider whether Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune
from such relief.” 	28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).2 	Courts undertaking this review should
liberally construe the pleadings. 	Burgos v. Hopkins, 14 F.3d 787, 790 (2d Cir.1994).
Certain legal defenses, including the expiration of the statute of limitations, provide a
basis for dismissal under section 1915. Milan v. Wertheimer, 808 F.3d 961, 963 (2d Cir.
2015).
The Amended Complaint provides significantly greater detail than the original
Complaint. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint makes clear that the allegations concern legal
proceedings between 2013 and May 2018. Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 7-12. Those proceedings
related to claims concerning personal property that was subject to forfeiture proceedings.
Id. 	Plaintiff contends that he suffers from a traumatic brain injury that impairs his
cognitive functioning. 	Id. at ¶ 13. 	He further goes on to allege that he requested
“additional time and procedural flexibility,” id. at ¶ 17, which Plaintiff asserts were
“necessary to allow meaningful participation in proceedings affecting his rights and
2 To determine whether an action is frivolous, a court must look to see whether the complaint “lacks an arguable
basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989).
Case 1:25-cv-01340-BKS-DJS Document 14 Filed 05/05/26 Page 2 of 5

- 3 -
property.” Id. at ¶ 18. Little is offered as to exactly what those accommodations would
practically have looked like or how they would have permitted Plaintiff’s greater
participation.
Plaintiff asserts claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”). 	Id. at pp. 3-4. 	An ADA claim arising in
New York is governed by a three year statute of limitations. Purcell v. New York Inst. of
Tech. - Coll. of Osteopathic Med., 931 F.3d 59, 63 (2d Cir. 2019); De La Rosa v. Lewis
Foods of 42nd St., LLC, 124 F. Supp. 3d 290, 299 n.14 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). The same three
year limitations period applies to claims under the RA. Vega-Ruiz v. Northwell Health,
992 F.3d 61, 63 (2d Cir. 2021); Harris v. City of New York, 186 F.3d 243, 247 (2d Cir.
1999). As discussed above, the facts giving rise to Plaintiff’s claim concern proceedings
in Ulster County Court between 2013 and May 2018. Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 7-12. This action,
commenced in 2025, therefore, is clearly untimely.
Given the fact that Plaintiff alleges he suffers from a traumatic brain injury, Am.
Compl. at ¶ 13 & p. 34, it is appropriate to consider whether any tolling may apply that
precludes dismissal at this stage. Equitable tolling may be available if a party can “offer
a ‘particularized description of how [his] condition adversely affected [his] capacity to
function generally or in relationship to the pursuit of [his] rights.’” 	Bolarinwa v.
Williams, 593 F.3d 226, 232 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Boos v. Runyon, 201 F.3d 178, 185
(2d Cir. 2000)). While it “is applied only in ‘rare and exceptional’ circumstances,” Dukes
Case 1:25-cv-01340-BKS-DJS Document 14 Filed 05/05/26 Page 3 of 5

- 4 -
v. City of Albany, 289 F. Supp. 3d 387, 395 (N.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting Smith v. McGinnis,
208 F.3d 13, 17 (2d Cir. 2000)), tolling may be appropriate if Plaintiff’s “injuries
prevented him from filing his claim or [he claimed] he was misled about his ability to do
so.” 	Sanchez v. City of New York, 2020 WL 5238604, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2020),
report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 2094097 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2020).
Nothing suggests, however, that tolling is appropriate here. 	This is the third action
brought by Plaintiff in this District since 2019. di Santo v. Ulster County Family Court,
19-cv-1422 (DNH/DJS); di Santo v. Ulster County, 21-cv-1132 (DNH/DJS). Plaintiff’s
disability, therefore, has clearly not prevented him from filing lawsuits, nor does he
appear to have had an understanding that he was not permitted to do so.
For the reasons stated herein, it is hereby
RECOMMENDED, that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint be DISMISSED; and it
is
ORDERED, that the request for an evidentiary hearing (Dkt. No. 13) is DENIED;
and it further
ORDERED, 	that 	the 	Clerk 	of 	the 	Court 	serve 	a 	copy 	of 	this 	Report-
Recommendation and Order upon the parties to this action.
Case 1:25-cv-01340-BKS-DJS Document 14 Filed 05/05/26 Page 4 of 5

- 5 -
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties have fourteen (14)3 days within
which to file written objections to the foregoing report. 	Such objections shall be filed
with the Clerk of the Court. FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THIS REPORT WITHIN
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS WILL PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW. 	Roldan v.
Racette, 984 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir. 1993) (citing Small v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs.,
892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); F ED . R. CIV . P. 72 & 6(a).
Dated: May 5, 2026
Albany, New York
3 If you are proceeding pro se and are served with this Order by mail, three additional days will be added to the
fourteen-day period, meaning that you have seventeen days from the date the order was mailed to you to serve and
file objections. F ED. R. CIV. P. 6(d). If the last day of that prescribed period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal
holiday, then the deadline is extended until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.
FED. R. C IV. P. 6(a)(1)(C).
Case 1:25-cv-01340-BKS-DJS Document 14 Filed 05/05/26 Page 5 of 5