New York's Proposed 50% Comparative
Negligence Bar — Where It Stands Right Now

The Hochul administration's 2026-2027 budget tort-reform package included a proposed amendment to CPLR §1411 — New York's pure-comparative-negligence statute. Under current law, a plaintiff who is 90% at fault still recovers 10% of damages. The proposed amendment would impose a 51% bar: if the plaintiff is more than 50% at fault, recovery is $0. This brings New York in line with the majority of states (32 states use a modified-comparative-fault regime) and aligns with Florida HB 837 (signed March 2023) and existing New Jersey law.

Not as of May 15, 2026. The bill was introduced as part of the Governor's executive budget proposal in early Q2 2026 and remains in committee. Similar proposals have been introduced in prior sessions and defeated — the political dynamics involve the New York State Trial Lawyers Association on one side and a coalition of insurance carriers, the Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York, and several real-estate trade associations on the other. This page tracks the bill's status; we update it as the legislative docket moves.

Most NY tort-reform legislation in recent decades has included a prospective-only effective date — meaning the new rule applies only to causes of action accruing AFTER the effective date. Florida HB 837 (2023) was prospective. If the NY proposal follows that model, plaintiffs whose injuries occurred before the effective date would continue to be governed by pure comparative negligence under CPLR §1411 as it currently reads. The bill text on this point will matter enormously for the wave of pre-enactment cases.

Almost certainly not as written. Labor Law §240(1) imposes absolute liability for gravity-related construction injuries, and the New York Court of Appeals has held repeatedly that comparative-negligence offsets do not reduce §240 recovery. Unless the proposed CPLR §1411 amendment expressly amends Labor Law §240 (no current draft does), §240 absolute liability would remain unchanged. The interaction will likely be litigated regardless — see our companion analysis at our Labor Law §240 reform page.

Plaintiffs in cases where the defense has a credible comparative-negligence argument that exceeds 50%. The clearest examples: jaywalking pedestrians struck by speeding drivers, motorcyclists in lane-splitting incidents, intoxicated rideshare passengers, and any case involving safety-equipment refusal by the plaintiff. The proposed bar would also disproportionately affect minimum-coverage primary defendant cases where the policy limits are low — an innocent passenger in an Uber/Lyft hit by a 60% at-fault driver gets the same recovery under either rule, but if the proposed bar reaches passengers in joint-liability scenarios with shared fault, the math gets complicated quickly.

Defendants and their insurance carriers. The most immediate beneficiaries: drivers and rideshare companies (Uber, Lyft, DoorDash), commercial truck carriers (under FMCSR violation cases), product-liability defendants, and premises-liability defendants. Carriers typically reduce reserves on books of business affected by tort reform; Florida saw mean settlement values fall substantially in the 12-24 months following HB 837 enactment. If NY adopts the same framework, expect parallel carrier responses.

Yes, and the interaction matters. The Hochul package also proposed amendments to CPLR §1601 (joint-and-several liability) that would limit when deep-pocket co-defendants are responsible for the full judgment when other defendants cannot pay. Under current law, a defendant who is only 10% at fault can be on the hook for 100% of an economic-damages award if other defendants are insolvent. The proposed §1601 amendment would tighten that — combined with the 50% bar, the net effect is that plaintiffs in multi-defendant cases face two new headwinds simultaneously: a higher bar to recovery and reduced ability to collect from the solvent co-defendant.

Florida HB 837 imposed a 51% bar (>50% = no recovery), reduced negligence SOL from 4 years to 2, and modified the collateral-source rule. New Jersey already operates under a modified-comparative-fault regime (NJSA §2A:15-5.1) with a 50% bar — plaintiffs at exactly 50% fault still recover, but those at 51%+ do not. The NY proposal as introduced tracks the Florida model more closely than the New Jersey model, though the bar threshold (50% vs 51%) and statute-of-limitations changes have not been finalized in the NY draft.

Three things. First, monitor the legislative docket — the bill could be amended, advanced, or killed in conference during the budget cycle. Second, time-sensitive evidence preservation matters even more if the bar passes prospectively: pre-enactment injuries will be litigated under the existing pure-comparative regime, which is a measurable advantage. Third, document your own conduct affirmatively. The strongest defense to a 50% bar argument is a clean record of safety-rule compliance and a clear chain of causation that minimizes plaintiff fault. Call us at (516) 750-0595 if you have questions about a pending or potential New York PI claim.

Bill numbers and committee status change as the legislative session moves. The current iteration is part of the Governor's 2026-2027 executive budget; specific Senate and Assembly companion bills can be tracked at nyassembly.gov and the New York Senate site. We post bill-number updates in the status tracker section above as they advance through Codes, Judiciary, or the Rules Committee in either house.