CPLR § 1007 governs third-party practice in New York state courts. For decades, it allowed defendants to implead additional parties at virtually any point before trial, as long as there was a colorable claim that the new party was or may be liable for all or part of the plaintiff's claim. The AVOID Act rewrote that rule from the ground up. This article narrates the transition, provision by provision.
For a side-by-side statutory comparison, see the before-and-after comparison page. For the full annotated statutory text with plain-English explanations, visit The Law.
How the old § 1007 worked
Under the pre-AVOID Act version of CPLR § 1007, a defendant had the right to serve a third-party summons and complaint on a person "not a party who is or may be liable to that defendant for all or part of the plaintiff's claim against that defendant." The statute gave defendants broad latitude on timing. There was no statutory deadline. A defendant could serve its answer, wait two years while plaintiff developed its case, and then implead new parties shortly before or after the note of issue was filed.
Courts had inherent discretion to grant or deny leave to implead based on factors like prejudice to the plaintiff, delay, and the colorability of the third-party claim. But the default posture was permissive. Defendants rarely had their impleader motions denied outright, and even late filings were often permitted if the defendant could argue that the third-party liability theory had only recently come to light.
The litigation dysfunction that followed
The absence of any hard deadline created a predictable set of problems. Defense counsel in construction cases could file a third-party complaint at any point, including after the note of issue, as a negotiating tactic: threatening impleader, or actually filing it, to force settlements, manufacture delays, or shift litigation costs onto parties who had not previously been involved. Plaintiffs and their counsel faced the prospect of a trial date evaporating as new parties were added and discovery reopened.
For general contractors in particular, the unlimited impleader window allowed a practice of waiting to see which subcontractors the plaintiff identified in discovery and then impleading them only after the relevant factual record had developed. This gave defendants an informational advantage but imposed systemic costs on the courts and other parties.
What the AVOID Act changed
The AVOID Act, effective April 18, 2026, replaced the open-ended permissive framework with a structured deadline system keyed to the answer date. The core change is that a defendant now has 90 days after serving its answer to file a third-party complaint as of right. After that window closes, impleader requires a court order.
The new deadline structure in brief
The revised § 1007 establishes a single 90-day period from the date of answer service for all third-party claims. The full framework is covered in AVOID Act deadlines: every timeline you need to know. The short version:
- All third-party defendants: 90 days from answer, as of right under CPLR § 1007(b)
- Employer exception (grave injury / unknown employer identity): 90 days from the later of the two triggering events, under CPLR § 1007(e)
- After note of issue: requires good cause or interest of justice under CPLR § 1007(c)
The note-of-issue provision
Perhaps the single most consequential change to § 1007 is the treatment of third-party complaints after the note of issue. Under the old statute, a defendant could file a motion for leave to add a third-party defendant even after the note of issue, and courts had broad discretion to grant it. Under the enacted AVOID Act, no third-party summons and complaint may be filed after the note of issue unless upon good cause shown or in the interest of justice.
This change makes post-note-of-issue filings exceptional rather than routine. Defendants cannot rely on the prior permissive standard. Court approval is required, and the good-cause and interest-of-justice standards give courts meaningful authority to deny late filings that would prejudice plaintiffs or delay trial.
The chapter amendments: the enacted law
The chapter amendments (S8809) are part of the AVOID Act as enacted on April 18, 2026. They replaced the tiered deadline structure in the original bill with the unified 90-day rule, eliminated a separate awareness-based trigger for certain claim types, revised the employer exception from a longer window to 90 days, and adjusted the note-of-issue provision. The chapter amendments page contains the full details of those changes and the reasoning behind them.
The consolidation ban
The enacted CPLR § 1007(f) provides that a third-party action that has been severed from the main action may not thereafter be consolidated with the main action. This provision eliminates a tactic under which defendants would allow a third-party complaint to be severed and then seek consolidation later when circumstances changed.
The anti-consolidation rule reinforces the note-of-issue provision. Together, they ensure that once the main action moves past the impleader window, the defendant's ability to bring additional parties into that proceeding is permanently extinguished.
Why this matters in practice
The transition from the old § 1007 to the new one is not merely a rule change. It requires defendants and their counsel to operate differently from the first day of litigation. Under the old rule, the impleader question could be deferred. Under the new rule, it must be answered within 90 days of the answer being served.
That shift in timing is also a shift in workflow. Firms that handled the impleader analysis as a mid-litigation task now need a process for completing it in the first weeks after service. That means having immediate access to contracts, subcontractor lists, certificates of insurance, and project records.
Review the compliance checklist for a structured approach to building that process. And use the deadline calculator to apply the new § 1007 framework to specific cases.