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 specific triggering events. The core change is that a defendant now has a defined number of days after serving its answer (or, for non-contractual claims, after "becoming aware" of the potential third-party defendant's liability) to file a third-party complaint. After that window closes, impleader requires either a court order or, ultimately, the consent of both the plaintiff and the court.
The new deadline structure in brief
The revised § 1007 distinguishes between contractual and non-contractual claims, first and subsequent third-party defendants, and standard cases versus those involving the employer exception. The full framework is covered in AVOID Act deadlines: every timeline you need to know. The short version:
- First third-party defendant, contractual claims: 90 days from answer (after chapter amendments)
- First third-party defendant, non-contractual claims: 60 days from awareness
- Subsequent third-party defendants: 45 days from answer
- Employer exception: 120 days from the relevant triggering event
- Hard cap: 12 months from answer, regardless
The note-of-issue prohibition
Perhaps the single most consequential change to § 1007 is the categorical prohibition on filing 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 discretion to grant it. That option is gone.
Once the note of issue enters the record, the door is closed. There is no motion practice to reopen it. The only path to third-party relief at that stage is a separate action, which will not be consolidated with the main case under the statute's anti-consolidation rule.
This change was among the most contested provisions of the AVOID Act. Defense practitioners argued that there are legitimate circumstances (discovery of a new theory, identification of a previously unknown subcontractor) that warrant post-note impleader. The legislature rejected those arguments, concluding that the existing note-of-issue framework already signals the end of the investigative phase and that defendants have had ample time to identify impleader targets before that point.
The chapter amendments: a mid-course adjustment
The original AVOID Act as enacted set the as-of-right period for contractual claims at 60 days. Within months of the statute's passage, the defense bar and construction industry groups argued that 60 days was insufficient for complex construction cases involving large project sites, multiple subcontractors, and documents held in various locations.
The legislature responded with chapter amendments that extended the as-of-right contractual deadline to 90 days. The employer exception was also refined through the amendments. The chapter amendments page contains the full details of those changes, including what the original provisions said and how the amended text reads.
The chapter amendments did not alter the core structure of the AVOID Act. The note-of-issue prohibition, the 12-month hard cap, the anti-consolidation rule, and the general framework of deadline-based impleader all survived unchanged.
The consolidation ban
The original CPLR § 1007 contained no specific provision addressing what happened to a severed third-party action. Under the AVOID Act, a severed action is permanently severed: it cannot be consolidated back with the main case. This provision eliminates a tactic under which defendants would allow a third-party complaint to be severed (often because of delays or deadline issues) and then seek consolidation later when circumstances changed.
The anti-consolidation rule reinforces the note-of-issue prohibition. 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 a defined period after the answer is 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.