New York AVOID Act CPLR 1007: Third-Party Deadline Changes You Need to Know

On December 19, 2025, Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law Chapter 704 of the Laws of 2025. The title of the Act is “Avoiding Vexatious Overuse of Impleading to Delay Act" (“AVOID Act”).

The AVOID Act amends CPLR § 1007 and imposes strict time limits for the commencement of third-party actions. Failure to follow these limits will result in dismissal or severance of the third-party claims.

The terms of the original bill were changed in Chapter Amendments A. 9502 and S8809, later merging into S8809 and being signed by Gov. Hochul on February 13, 2026. Thus, effective April 18, 2026, CPLR § 1007 adds subsections (b) – (f) and will read as follows:

(b) A defendant shall not file a third-party summons and complaint more than ninety days after serving its answer without an order of the court.

(c) No third-party summons and complaint may be filed after the filing of a note of issue unless upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice.

(d) An action filed in violation of this subdivision shall be severed or dismissed without prejudice.

(e) Notwithstanding (b) and (c) of this section, a defendant or third-party defendant may file a third-party summons and complaint against an employer of the plaintiff within ninety days of the later of: 1. the date the identity of the employer becomes known to the defendant or third-party defendant, or 2. the date the defendant or third-party defendant knows or should know the plaintiff sustained a grave injury as such term is defined in section 11 of the workers’ compensation law.

(f) In the event a third-party action is severed from the initial action pursuant to this section, and a third-party plaintiff proceeds to initiate a new action by the filing of a summons and complaint against a severed third-party defendant, any motion to consolidate such actions shall not be permitted.

The Chapter Amendments clarified that the AVOID Act will only apply to cases commenced on or after April 18, 2026.

The wording of the new statute is likely to lead to litigation regarding the timing of third-party actions against employers because the time limits are not concrete. How does a defendant prove that it did not know the identity of plaintiff’s employer if the third-party action is commenced more than 90 days after the defendant filed its answer?

Also, when does a defendant “know” that a plaintiff sustained a grave injury? While some of the categories of grave injury are clearly defined and should be known upon receipt of the bill of particulars, the category of grave injury that concerns “an acquired injury to the brain caused by an external physical force resulting in permanent total disability” requires proof not only of a traumatic brain injury but also of an inability to work in any capacity. Is a plaintiff’s claim in a bill of particulars of a traumatic brain injury coupled with the claim that plaintiff is totally disabled from employment enough, or does the time to file begin when the defendant receives medical records, or does the defendant’s time begin following a defense medical examination where the physician provides an opinion that plaintiff sustained a grave injury? These are all issues that the trial courts will need to decide, likely on a case-by-case basis.

Impact of the AVOID Act on Claims Handling and Defense Practice

A) Early pre-suit investigation becomes of paramount importance

The new time limits for commencing third-party actions means that defendants need to conduct early investigation of potential lawsuits to identify joint tortfeasors and to gather the necessary evidence with respect to those tortfeasors, i.e. contracts, leases, witness statements. Preferably, this investigation should take place pre-suit, but if done following the commencement of an action, it must be done expeditiously.

Where there are potential claims against contractors or vendors who were not sued by the plaintiff, evidence to support the claims against those entities needs to be obtained and preserved in order to timely commence the third-party action after the answer has been served.

B) Consider pre-Answer motion practice

In lieu of filing an answer, the defendant should consider motion practice. For example, CPLR 3024 provides that a defendant may ask for a more definite statement if a pleading is vague or ambiguous. The new CPLR 1007 clock starts from the service of the answer and making a pre-answer motion would not count. Alternatively, a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211 would not start the clock and could narrow down clearly inapplicable claims.

C) File Answer as late as possible

Since the 90-day clock starts upon service of the answer, the defense attorney needs to file the answer on the last possible day and consider asking for extensions of time to answer. This delay in answering will afford the defendant the time to properly investigate the causes of action to identify potential third-parties.

The AVOID Act requires counsel and client to work quickly to identify third-parties who owe indemnity or contribution so as to reduce defense costs in the long run and to ensure that determination of wrongdoing is resolved in one action.

Please note this is a general overview of developments in the law and does not constitute legal advice. Nothing herein creates an attorney-client relationship between the sender and the recipient. If you have any questions about the AVOID Act, please feel free to contact Nicholas Cardascia at (516) 357-3805 or via email at NCardascia@cullenllp.com.