New York's civil practice rules are entering a new era of procedural efficiency, with two amendments that will impact everyday litigation strategy in state court. First, the Legislature enacted the Avoiding Vexatious Overuse of Impleading to Delay (AVOID) Act, which significantly modifies CPLR 1007 by imposing strict time limits on third-party practice. Governor Hochul signed the Act on December 19, 2025, and the changes become effective on April 18, 2026.
Second, New York expanded and clarified the use of unsworn affirmations under CPLR 2106, resolving ambiguity left by the 2024 amendment and expressly confirming that most sworn written statements in civil litigation may now be submitted by affirmation rather than notarized affidavit. Although these changes address different procedural problems, the practical result is the same. New York courts are pushing litigants toward a faster, more front-loaded approach to case development, risk transfer, and motion practice.
The AVOID Act Rewrites Third-Party Practice Under CPLR 1007
Historically, CPLR 1007 permitted third-party practice without any express statutory deadline. Instead, courts often evaluated whether impleader would promote judicial economy or whether it would create undue delay or prejudice, particularly as discovery progressed or trial approached.
That framework allowed defendants to pursue contribution, indemnity, or contractual risk transfer after key developments clarified exposure and liability. It also meant that impleader practice could be litigated through motion practice focused on delay, prejudice, and fairness. The AVOID Act fundamentally alters that paradigm by replacing discretionary balancing with hard deadlines.
Effective Dates and Applicability to Pending Cases
The AVOID Act takes effect April 18, 2026, and applies to both new actions and pending actions that remain pending on or after the effective date, so long as the third-party action has not already been commenced.
A key practical point is that the law does not retroactively bar third-party actions already commenced before the statute's enactment. In other words, defendants who already impleaded another party before the AVOID Act was signed will not be impacted by the new timing restrictions.
The New 60 Day Deadline for Impleader
The most significant change is the creation of a strict 60-day deadline for commencing a third-party action. In contract-based cases, the time to implead generally runs from the defendant's service of answer, and in non-contract cases the clock may run from when the defendant becomes aware of the proposed third party defendant's potential liability.
This distinction matters because New York defendants frequently implead third-party defendant under two common pathways.
First are contract-driven claims, including breach of contract, contractual indemnification, and failure to procure insurance. These claims often appear in construction, premises liability, transportation, and property cases where multiple entities have contractual relationships allocating defense and indemnity obligations.
Second are non-contract claims like common law indemnification and contribution, where the defendant's need for impleader may become clear only after discovery develops. Under the AVOID Act, that type of "wait-and-see" approach becomes far riskier because a defendant may lose its impleader opportunity if it does not act quickly after learning the relevant facts. The net effect is to force earlier and more aggressive third-party evaluation at the start of litigation.
Employer Impleader Exception
The AVOID Act includes an exception allowing impleader of a plaintiff's employer within 120 days after the employer's identity is ascertained. This carveout appears intended to preserve impleader opportunities in cases where the identity of the employer is not immediately clear or is contested during early discovery.
Successive Third-Party Practice Now Has Its Own Deadlines
The AVOID Act does not only affect the original defendant. It also imposes strict time limits on successive third-party practice, including second and subsequent impleaders.
In general terms, the statute creates a sequence of deadlines for newly impleaded parties to bring additional third-party actions, with progressively shorter timelines for later impleaders.
From a strategy standpoint, this creates a "domino effect." If the first defendant must act quickly to preserve its impleader rights, the same is true for the first third-party defendant and any later added parties. In multi-party construction and catastrophic injury cases, this could drive early "rush" impleader practice and more immediate motion activity over pleadings.
Stipulations Only Extend the Deadlines by 30 Days
The AVOID Act permits parties to stipulate to extend the new deadlines, but only by 30 days, after which defendants must seek leave of court for any further enlargement. In addition, once a third-[arty is sought to be commenced 12 months or more after service of the defendant's answer, additional requirements apply, including plaintiff consent in certain circumstances, which limits the historical ability to add third-party defendants later in the litigation.
No Third Party Actions After the Note of Issue
The AVOID Act also prohibits third-party practice after the filing of the note of issue, reflecting a strong legislative preference for finality once a case is placed on the trial calendar. Just as importantly, if a third-party action is severed from the main action, the statute restricts later consolidation efforts, limiting the ability to regain efficiency once severance occurs.
Litigation and Risk-Transfer Implications of the AVOID Act
Front-loading risk transfer is now mandatory, not optional. Defense counsel have long managed impleader timing with a combination of strategy and practicality. Cases do not always reveal their true allocation issues at the pleading stage, and defendants often waited to implead until depositions, records, or expert evaluations clarified key points.
The AVOID Act changes that calculus. The hard deadlines create an environment where early risk transfer evaluation is no longer simply best practice. In many cases, it will be essential to avoid waiver. This is particularly true where a defendant may later discover strong contractual indemnity rights or insurance procurement obligations, but misses the procedural window to implement those rights through impleader.
More Early Motion Practice is Likely
One predictable consequence of this legislation is an increase in early third-party filings, along with corresponding motion practice challenging impleader timeliness, seeking extensions, or disputing the trigger data for awareness of potential third party liability. Parties will likely litigate when the defendant "knew or should have known" enough to trigger the deadline, especially in common law indemnification or contribution contexts.
Practical File-Handling Changes for Defense Teams
Firms and claims teams should consider implementing a formal early-case checklist, including:
- Immediate contract review and tender evaluation
- Identification of upstream and downstream parties
- Insurance procurement audits and additional insured analysis
- Early loss-transfer decision points (including preservation of impleader rights)
In a nutshell, the AVOID Act rewards early diligence and penalizes delay. Clearly, the new law may negatively impact the defendant's ability to seek risk transfer to other parties where knowledge of that party or contractor did not become known until later in the litigation or where plaintiff filed a note of issue prematurely only to result in the Court refusing to strike the case from the calendar causing the defendant to be prejudiced in its right to bring in another tortfeasor in the action.
CPLR 2016: New York Broadens the Use of Unsworn Affirmations
Effective January 1, 2024, the Legislature amended CPLR 2106 to allow any person to submit an unsworn affirmation with the same force and effect as a sworn affidavit, where previously the rule largely applied only to attorneys and certain medical professionals. That change modernized the practice and reduced friction associated with notarization, particularly for out-of-state witnesses, clients, and adjusters. However, the 2024 amendment left ambiguity about whether notarized affidavits were still required for certain categories of sworn statements frequently used in civil litigation.
The 2025 Amendment Clarified That Affirmations Apply Broadly
Governor Hochul signed legislation clarifying that affirmations may be used "in lieu of and with the same force and effect as" affidavits and a wide array of other sworn civil practice documents, including responses to notices to admit, interrogatory answers, pleadings verifications, bills of particulars, and other sworn statements.
The amended CPLR 2106 also confirms that an affirmation may include statements made "upon information and belief," which is significant because many verifications and sworn responses necessarily include some information that is not based entirely on firsthand knowledge.
The New Statutory Affirmation Language
The new law provides statutory language that may be used in a sworn affirmation. The required structure confirms the affirmation is made under penalties of perjury under New York law and clarifies that the document may be filed in a court action. This language should be adopted into firm templates to ensure compliance and consistency.
Practice Takeaways for Defense Counsel and Claims Professionals
These two procedural amendments create clear action items for litigators handling New York cases in 2026 and beyond. Any pending New York matter that could involve third party risk transfer should be reviewed to identify:
- Contractual indemnity and defense obligations
- Failure to procure insurance claims
- Additional insured tender opportunities
- Potential common law indemnification or contribution targets.
If impleader is likely, the timetable must be tracked immediately, including calendar controls keyed to service of the answer and any later awareness trigger date.
Immediate Action Item for CPLR 2016 Templates
Firms should update template libraries for:
- Client verifications
- Bills of particulars
- Interrogatory answers
- responses to Notices to Admit
Affirmation language should be standardized so filings are consistent, compliant, and defensible if challenged.
Conclusion
The AVOID Act eliminates the traditional flexibility of CPLR 1007 and replaces it with strict impleader deadlines that will reshape risk transfer practice statewide. Meanwhile, the CPLR 2016 amendment removes lingering ambiguity and cements affirmations as the default mechanism for sworn written statements in New York civil litigation.
Together these amendments signal a broader shift. New York is building a civil procedure framework designed to minimize delay and reduce administrative friction, even if that requires litigants to commit earlier and more aggressively to their litigation posture. For defense counsel, the message is clear. Case assessment, contract review, tender analysis, and impleader evaluation must happen early. Waiting may no longer be an option.
