On December 19, 2025, Governor Kathy Hochul signed the “Avoiding Vexatious Overuse of Impleading to Delay (“AVOID”) Act” into law, marking a significant shift in New York’s third-party practice rules.[i]  The law amends New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 1007 (“CPLR”), which governs third-party actions, by establishing strict and shorter time limits for defendants to bring third-party claims. The AVOID Act aims to streamline litigation by ensuring that all necessary parties are impleaded within a year after the filing of the main action. Although the law will not take effect until April 18, 2026, attorneys, insurers, and risk management professionals should familiarize themselves with the new rules to avoid negative consequences from failing to comply.

Historically, CPLR § 1007 allowed defendants to initiate third-party actions against individuals or entities who might share liability for plaintiff’s claims.  These third-party actions often involved indemnification or contribution claims, particularly in labor law or construction defect matters.  Though CPLR § 1010 provided some safeguards against undue delays, prior to the AVOID Act, New York had no explicit time limits for initiating these actions.[ii]  Courts could sever or dismiss third-party complaints if they significantly delayed the main action or prejudiced a plaintiff’s case.[iii]  However, the plaintiff’s bar lobbied and successfully argued that the discretionary remedies were seldomly implemented and defendants were strategically impleading third parties late in the process to delay resolution and avoid financial accountability.  The AVOID Act is supposed to curb this claimed abuse.

The AVOID Act imposes firm deadlines for the initiation of third-party claims.  Defendants must now file a third-party action within 60 days of serving their initial answer or within 60 days of learning of a potential third-party defendant’s liability.[iv]  For claims of contractual indemnification or failure to procure insurance, the 60-day window starts upon answering the complaint.  For contribution or common-law indemnification claims, the deadline is triggered when the defendant learns of the third-party defendant’s potential liability. Claims for contribution or indemnification against employers that allege “grave injuries” under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 are excluded from the Act (the existing 120-day time period still applies).[v]

The AVOID Act imposes even shorter deadlines for third-party defendants seeking to bring in additional parties by the filing of a third-party complaint. The first third-party defendant added has 45 days to file[vi], the second third-party defendant added has 30 days[vii], and any subsequently added third-party defendants have only 20 days[viii]. The law makes no distinction between types of liability, which may create challenges for defendants who are unaware of other potentially liable parties at the time of the initial third-party action.  The AVOID Act also introduces limitations on extensions.  Parties can extend deadlines by up to 30 days through stipulation, but any extension longer than 30 days requires court approval.  In addition, third-party actions cannot be filed after the Note of Issue is filed in the case.[ix]

The AVOID Act’s sponsors argued that it will eliminate “delay tactics” by defendants seeking to drag out litigation through the late impleader of third parties. However, the reality is that the AVOID Act fails to recognize the practicalities of civil litigation, particularly in complex cases like construction accidents or insurance disputes.  In these cases, defendants often need additional time to resolve insurance coverage issues or assess the true scope of liability, which may evolve as the case progresses. By forcing defendants to implead third parties prematurely, before insurance disputes are settled or the full scope of potential liability is known, the AVOID Act may result in more parties being added unnecessarily.  This will not only increase litigation costs, but needlessly complicate discovery and prolong the overall litigation process.  Defendants may be required to add subcontractors based on incomplete or ambiguous information, further escalating the complexity and cost of the case.

For attorneys and insurers in New York, the key takeaway from the AVOID Act is the dramatic reduction in time allowed for third-party impleader.  Defense attorneys must act quickly to identify potential third-party defendants, particularly in cases involving contractual indemnification or failure to procure insurance.  Upon assignment of files, defense attorneys, insurers, and risk management professionals must work quickly to identify relevant parties, locate contracts and insurance policies, and sort out possible coverage issues.  With the potential for serious consequences if deadlines are missed, it is essential that the parties understand these changes posed by the amendments to CPLR § 1007 and take immediate action to comply.

Keep Reading

How TV Makes Me a Better Lawyer A Deep Dive Into the Not-So-Modern Problem of “Deepfakes” New York’s Consumer Litigation Funding Act Pulls Back Curtain on Litigation Funding Agreements Anatomy of a $12 Million Verdict—Part One: How the Apex Could Have Changed the Trajectory of a Warren County Trucking Case Tort Reform Is Not Strategy: What Claims Teams Must Change Now, Not Tomorrow No Duty, No Problem for a Texas Jury Nuclear Verdicts® Go Global, and So Does The Apex Defusing the Judicial Hellhole®: Pre-Suit Strategy Can Prevent Nuclear Verdicts® The Sixth Sense is Common Sense: Florida Court Holds No Duty to Warn When Adults Fail to Use Ordinary Care for Their Own Safety

More by this author

New York State’s AVOID Act Will Drastically Change Third-Party Litigation This Spring Time-Saving Tips and Tricks for Attorneys New York’s Grieving Families Act: What’s at Stake?

Sources

[i] 2025 N.Y. Sess. Laws ch. 704 (enacting amendments to N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1007).

[ii] N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1010.

[iii] See, for example: Garcia v. Gesher Realty Corp., 280 AD2d 440 (1st Dept 2001); cf. Neckles v. VW Credit, Inc., 23 A.D.3d 191, 192 (1st Dept 2005) and Carvajal v. Alcaide, 241 N.Y.S.3d 761, 764 (2nd Dept 2025).

[iv] N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1010 (b)(1).

[v] N.Y. C.P.L.R § 1010 (5)(D).

[vi] N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1010 (b)(2).

[vii] N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1010 (b)(3).

[viii] N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1010 (b)(4).

[ix] N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1010 (b)(5).