A major procedural shift to New York’s third-party practice has arrived. Signed by Governor Hochul on December 19, 2025, and effective April 18, 2026, the Avoiding Vexatious Overuse of Impleading to Delay (AVOID) Act amends CPLR 1007 to significantly limit when and how defendants may implead third parties. The changes are aimed at reducing delay and promoting efficiency, but they also impose stricter obligations on defendants in the earliest stages of a case.
The AVOID Act replaces flexibility with firm deadlines and consequences. Defendants will need to identify and pursue third-party claims early or risk such claims being severed or dismissed without prejudice.
WHAT’S CHANGING UNDER CPLR 1007
The amended rule introduces many changes that reshape third-party practice in New York, but here are four that are particularly important.
A New 90-Day Deadline to Implead Third Parties
The centerpiece of the reform is a strict new timeline requiring defendants to file any third-party summons and complaint within 90 days of serving their answer, absent a court order.
This marks a significant departure from the prior rule, which contained no such deadline and, in practice, allowed defendants to implead third parties much later in a case. Under the new rule, a defendant must seek leave of court after 90 days, and there is no guarantee it will be granted.
A Dramatically Shortened Service Deadline
The new rule also reduces the time to serve a third-party summons and complaint from 120 days to just 20 days after filing.
Defendants must not only identify third parties quickly but also locate and serve them within a much narrower window. In complex cases involving multiple entities or out-of-state parties, this requirement may prove difficult for many defendants and may necessitate motion practice to extend the time for service in many cases.
No Third-Party Complaints After the Note of Issue
The rule now expressly prohibits the filing of any third-party summons and complaint once a note of issue is filed, unless upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice.
The “good cause shown” exception leaves the door open to potential late filings. “Good cause” will be subject to interpretation and left to the discretion of the court.
New Consequences – Severance or Dismissal Without Prejudice
The amended rule now provides that a late filing “shall be” severed or dismissed without prejudice, seemingly leaving little discretion to the courts.
Although dismissal without prejudice allows for the filing of a new third-party action, the practical consequences are significant. As discussed in more detail below, pursuing a claim in a separate action risks inefficiencies and potential inconsistent rulings.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR LITIGANTS
The AVOID Act requires a fundamental shift in how defendants approach litigation.
Early Investigation Is Essential
If early investigation wasn’t already important before this amendment took effect (it was), defendants must now take extra care to conduct thorough factual and legal analysis immediately after a case begins. Waiting for discovery is not a viable option. Defendants must quickly determine whether other parties — particularly contractors, subcontractors, subconsultants, suppliers, or vendors — may share responsibility.
This is especially critical in construction and design professional liability matters, where parties often seek to shift risk through complex networks of contracts and subcontracts. Early review of contracts and insurance policies is essential to assess potential indemnification and contribution rights.
Impleading to Avoid Waiver of Rights
The strict deadlines and consequences for missing them are likely to encourage a more cautious approach by defendants. Defendants may implead third parties prematurely in an abundance of caution simply to preserve their rights.
This strategy reduces the risk of waiver but likely will expand the number of parties involved in a case. In turn, this can increase the complexity and costs of litigation.
THE IMPACT ON JUDICIAL ECONOMY
The AVOID Act will undoubtedly have an impact on judicial economy, but perhaps not in ways that the legislature intended.
Speed Versus Complexity
The amendment is intended to streamline litigation by eliminating late-stage impleader and keeping cases on track for trial.
However, the practical impact may be more complex. Faced with a strict deadline and potential severance or dismissal, defendants may take a cautious approach and implead a broader range of parties at the outset, including those they might not have pursued under the prior rule. This can result in larger, more complex cases with longer case schedules due to the increased time needed in discovery and beyond.
Spin-Off Litigation and Inconsistent Rulings
Another likely consequence is the rise of separate, parallel proceedings. When third-party claims are severed or dismissed without prejudice, defendants will likely pursue those claims in independent actions.
This may result in duplicative discovery, litigating related issues in multiple forums, and additional litigation costs for the parties, particularly defendants who need to litigate in two separate actions. Courts, in turn, may also face inefficiencies for similar reasons. Litigating related cases in different forums also raises the risk of inconsistent rulings.
KEY TAKEAWAYS FOR DEFENDANTS
- Review contracts and subcontracts before serving an answer. Analyze indemnification provisions, insurance obligations, and scope-of-work clauses to determine whether impleader is necessary.
- In the absence of a contract, consider any other entities that may have contributed to the alleged harm while owing a duty to the defendant.
- Consider early consultation with experts. In technical cases such as design professional liability claims, early expert input may be helpful in evaluating third-party liability.
- Adopt a cautious approach to pleading. If there is a reasonable possibility that a third party may be liable, it may be prudent to implead them within the 90-day window.
- Plan ahead for the 20-day service deadline. Seek to identify and locate third parties before filing a summons and complaint to allow for quick service.
- Implement strict deadline tracking. The compressed timelines leave little margin for error, making internal calendaring and case management critical.
The AVOID Act marks a major shift toward earlier, more disciplined third-party practice. Defendants who act quickly and strategically will be best positioned to navigate the new rule.
G. Thomas Curran, Jr. is Senior Counsel in Underberg & Kessler’s Litigation, Business & Corporate, and Construction practice groups. He has extensive experience in litigation, commercial contracting, and advising on high-stakes legal matters, including lawsuits involving complex construction and engineering issues, bankruptcy matters, breaches of contract, and other disputes. Tom can be reached at (585) 258-2811 or tcurran@underbergkessler.com.
Reprinted with permission from The Daily Record and available as a PDF file here.
