The AVOID Act transformed third-party practice in New York by attaching a firm deadline to the impleader decision. For defendants in construction, premises liability, and transportation cases, understanding exactly which clock applies and when it starts is now a foundational litigation skill. This article collects every relevant deadline in one place.
The deadline framework: a complete reference
The enacted AVOID Act (S8071A as amended by chapter amendments S8809) establishes a unified framework. The deadline calculator applies these rules to specific dates.
There is no stipulated extension mechanism and no fixed outer cap under the enacted law. Extensions beyond 90 days require a court order. Filing after the note of issue requires a showing of good cause or that filing is in the interest of justice.
The 90-day deadline
The core rule under CPLR § 1007(b) is simple: a defendant shall not file a third-party summons and complaint more than 90 days after serving its answer without an order of the court.
This applies to all third-party claims. The chapter amendments eliminated an earlier tiered structure that had applied different deadlines based on claim type and whether the party was an original or downstream third-party defendant. The enacted law applies the same 90-day rule across the board.
The clock runs from the date you served your answer, not from the date the complaint was filed or the date you were served. That distinction matters in cases where there is a gap between service and the date counsel formally serves the answer.
The employer exception
The employer exception under CPLR § 1007(e) provides a separate 90-day window in cases involving Workers' Compensation Law § 11 grave injury claims or situations where the employer's identity was not known when the answer was served.
The 90-day employer exception clock runs from the later of two triggering events: (1) the date the identity of the employer becomes known, or (2) the date the defendant knows or should know the plaintiff sustained a grave injury as defined in WCL § 11.
This exception exists because grave injury cases may involve injuries whose severity is not immediately apparent and employers whose identity may not be known from the project records. The employer exception is analyzed in depth in The employer exception article.
The note-of-issue rule
Under CPLR § 1007(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. This rule does not appear on any deadline chart because it is not a deadline in the ordinary sense: it is a condition that requires court approval, triggered by the note of issue filing, regardless of where the defendant stands on the 90-day window.
This means that if the note of issue is filed early in the case, defendants cannot rely on remaining days in the 90-day period. Court approval under the good-cause or interest-of-justice standard is required. In practice, defendants must complete their impleader analysis before the note of issue is filed, not merely before the 90-day deadline expires.
Court-ordered extensions
The only path to filing beyond 90 days (before the note of issue) is a court order. The AVOID Act does not define the standard for granting such an order, and courts are developing that standard through early case law. Defendants seeking a court-ordered extension should expect to show a specific reason for the delay that was not within their control and to demonstrate that the extension serves the interest of justice.
There is no mechanism for parties to agree in writing to extend the deadline without court involvement.
The severance remedy
Under CPLR § 1007(d), a third-party action filed in violation of the statute's time limits shall be severed or dismissed without prejudice. The consolidation ban in CPLR § 1007(f) applies to any third-party action severed under § 1007(d). This is narrower than the general severance power under CPLR § 603, but important to understand alongside it: once the court severs a third-party action under § 1007(d) for a timing violation, subdivision (f) prevents reconsolidation.
Applicability: cases commenced on or after April 18, 2026
The AVOID Act applies to cases commenced on or after April 18, 2026. It does not apply retroactively to cases commenced before that date.
Tracking deadlines effectively
Because the 90-day window runs from a specific event (answer service), defendants in active litigation should calendar the deadline immediately upon serving an answer. Use the deadline calculator to convert your answer date into a specific filing deadline. The compliance checklist provides a structured approach to building the operational processes that ensure no deadline is missed across an entire litigation portfolio.