With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: holding that the 120day filing period is subject to equitable tolling and addressing circumstances warranting equitable tolling
B: holding title vii subject to equitable tolling
C: holding that 29 cfr  1614105a1 is subject to equitable tolling based on mental illness
D: holding that where client was abandoned by attorney due to attorneys mental illness equitable tolling may be appropriate
C.