Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On the evening of July 7, 1990, the plaintiff became embroiled in a heated argument with the defendant, Thomas Gallinelli, which escalated to the point where the plaintiff was struck in the eye with a metal lawn chair. Three years later, the plaintiff commenced this action against Thomas Gallinelli and his wife, Catherine, seeking compensatory and punitive damages. When the Gallinellis moved for summary judgment, the Supreme Court granted the motion dismissing all five causes of action. We affirm.
The first, third, and fourth causes of action, which alleged intentional torts, were properly dismissed as time-barred by the one-year Statute of Limitations set forth in CPLR 215 (3). Although the second cause of action was couched in terms of negligence, the court properly treated it as an additional intentional assault claim and dismissed it as untimely. If, based on a reading of the factual allegations, the essence of the cause of action is, as here, assault, the plaintiff cannot exalt form over substance by labeling the action as one for negligence ( see, Dykstra v. Partridge, 144 A.D.2d 337; Trott v. Merit Dept. Store, 106 A.D.2d 158).
The fifth cause of action, which was asserted against Catherine Gallinelli, was properly dismissed because she was not present during the altercation and could not have reasonably foreseen the event ( see, Barraza v. Sambade, 212 A.D.2d 655).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
Sullivan, J.P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.