The AVOID Act: A Fundamental Shift in New York Construction Litigation
On December 19, 2025, Governor Kathy Hochul signed the “Avoiding Vexatious Overuse of Impleading to Delay” (AVOID) Act, ushering in one of the most significant changes to New York third-party practice in recent years. The statute, which amends CPLR § 1007, fundamentally alters how and when defendants may bring third parties into an action. The act applies to cases filed on or after April 18, 2026. While prior practice afforded litigants substantial flexibility in this regard, the AVOID Act replaces that system with a strict deadline framework that requires immediate strategic decision-making. This is especially true in construction litigation.
Prior to the AVOID Act, New York followed a largely discovery-driven approach to impleader. Defendants could commence third-party actions at virtually any point after serving an answer, provided there was no undue prejudice, and then had 120 days to serve the pleading pursuant to CPLR § 1007. This allowed parties to wait until depositions, document exchanges or expert disclosures effectively clarified each parties’ responsibilities before impleading additional, and potentially unnecessary, parties. The AVOID Act eliminates that flexibility.
Under the amended statute, a defendant seeking to bring a third-party claim may not file a third-party summons and complaint more than 90 days after serving its answer to the main claim without an order of the court (§ 1007 [b]). The statute does not list a standard for obtaining that “order of the court,” but instead provides discretion to the court for late impleader. Further, third-party actions commenced outside the 90-day window are subject to dismissal or severance without prejudice (§ 1007 [d]). Regarding those severed actions, the statute clarifies any motion to consolidate such actions shall not be permitted (§ 1007[f]). Lastly, impleader after filing the note of issue will require a showing of good cause or that it serves the interest of justice (§ 1007[c]). It is important to note that other sources may indicate a 60-day deadline with a tiered system for impleader; however, the legislature adopted subsequent chapter amendments to arrive at a uniform 90-day rule after the tiered system faced criticism.
With this change, all parties can expect to engage in more discovery and motion practice. While the legislators’ intent sought to deter defendants from prolonging cases by sequentially and slowly adding third-party defendants to stretch out the length of the case, this change shifts impleader into a front-loaded obligation. Since 90 days is often insufficient time to conduct proper investigation into a claim, this statute places pressure upon defendants to implead every conceivable subcontractor and design professional into an action out of an abundance of caution to preserve their rights. In turn, this not only increases the case’s complexity and caption size but also increases the legal expenses that subcontractors and design professionals must face to participate in discovery and dispositive motion practice to seek dismissal.
Another unintended consequence may be an uptick in requests to extend the time to answer to allow the defendant more time to implead, and/or pre-answer motions to extend the time to answer and delay the start of the impleader clock. Though the AVOID Act does not eliminate a defendant’s ability to bring a separate action against a third party (§ 1007 [d]), doing so forfeits the efficiencies and judicial economy of unified proceedings and may result in duplicative discovery, increased costs and the risk of inconsistent outcomes.
Going forward, success under the amended CPLR § 1007 will depend on a proactive, front-loaded approach to risk assessment and party identification. As of April 18, 2026, delays will no longer function as strategy but instead create risk.
Cohen Seglias is here to provide the specialized legal support your team needs to successfully manage high-stakes disputes. Whether you require assistance with early identification of third-party claims, drafting dispositive motions, or guidance on meeting compressed timelines imposed by CPLR § 1007, the lawyers at Cohen Seglias regularly advise clients on such issues.
