By Jason Tenenbaum, Esq. · 24+ Years · NY, NJ, FL, TX, GA, MI Bar Admissions
New York's 2026 Article 51
Mostly-at-Fault Bar — Passed
Governor Hochul's FY2027 auto tort reform package was signed into law on May 26, 2026. New CPLR §1411(b) creates an Article 51 motor-vehicle carveout: if the claimant is more at fault than the defendant, or more at fault than the combined defendants, recovery is barred. It applies to actions commenced on or after May 26, 2026. New York remains pure comparative outside that carveout.
Updated October 2026: the bar is law. This page was published May 15, 2026, while the bar was a budget proposal. Law changed May 26, 2026: chapter 58 of the Laws of 2026 (A10008-C), Part EE, section 3, added CPLR 1411(b), which bars recovery in a personal-injury action subject to Insurance Law article 51 when the claimant's culpable conduct is greater than the defendant's or greater than the defendants' combined conduct. It applies to actions commenced on or after May 26, 2026; actions commenced before that date, and every case outside article 51, stay under pure comparative fault. Revised October 23, 2026 to state the rule as enacted.
October 2026 Status
Where the Law Stands
As of October 23, 2026
In Force
Since May 26, 2026
Signed May 26, 2026 as chapter 58 of the Laws of 2026 (A10008-C, substituted for S9008-C), Part EE. Applies to actions commenced on or after that date.
> 50%
Article 51 Bar Threshold
The claimant is barred when the claimant's culpable conduct is "greater than" the defendant's, or greater than the defendants' combined conduct. With one defendant, that is more than 50%; at exactly 50% the claimant still recovers half.
10
States Still Pure Comparative
A 50-state chart updated June 10, 2026 (Matthiesen, Wickert & Lehrer) lists ten states that generally follow pure comparative fault, New York among them outside the Article 51 carveout. Most other states use a 50% or 51% bar; four states and D.C. keep contributory negligence.
This page now tracks the enacted Article 51 mostly-at-fault bar. For the full statutory breakdown — including the 90/180 deletion, fault-first trials, and the $100,000 bad-actor cap — see our companion Hochul Tort Reform 2026 analysis.
What Actually Changed
New York generally remains a pure comparative negligence state, but the 2026 reform created a motor-vehicle carveout for personal-injury actions subject to Insurance Law Article 51. In that carveout, CPLR 1411(b) provides that the claimant's culpable conduct "shall bar recovery if the culpable conduct attributable to the claimant is greater than the culpable conduct of the person against whom recovery is sought or is greater than the combined culpable conduct of the persons against whom recovery is sought." Subsection (a) names actions for personal injury, injury to property and wrongful death; subsection (b) names only personal injury. Property-damage claims, and every action not subject to Article 51 (premises, construction, medical malpractice, product liability), stay under CPLR 1411(a), where the claimant's fault reduces the award but never bars it.
CPLR §1411(a): Every Case Outside Article 51
Pure Comparative Negligence
- Recovery rule: Recovery = damages × (100% − plaintiff's fault %).
- Bar: None. Plaintiff at 99% fault still recovers 1%.
- Strategic implication: Plaintiffs file even in high-fault cases; defendants settle to avoid jury sympathy on damages award.
- Insurance reserves: Because fault only reduces the award, even a high-fault claim with real injuries carries some value.
CPLR §1411(b): Article 51 Carveout (in force May 26, 2026)
Mostly-at-Fault Bar
- Recovery rule: Same reduction formula when the claimant is not barred. With one defendant, a plaintiff more than 50% at fault recovers $0.
- Bar: The claimant's culpable conduct is compared with the defendant's and with the defendants' combined conduct. The text does not say how the single-defendant comparison works when there are several defendants; that is a question for the courts.
- Which cases: Personal-injury actions subject to Insurance Law Article 51, commenced on or after May 26, 2026.
- Strategic implication: Defendants escalate comparative-negligence pleadings in close cases. Trial risk shifts to plaintiff.
- Insurance reserves: Carriers may value motor-vehicle claims lower where claimant fault could land near the line (for example, pedestrian, rideshare and delivery-vehicle crashes).
Practitioner note. The bar reshapes jury deliberations in Article 51 cases. Under pure comparative law, juries focused on damages once liability was established. Under the Article 51 bar, comparative-fault apportionment becomes outcome-determinative — and defense counsel will spend significant trial time arguing the claimant's exact percentage of responsibility. This shifts trial dynamics in ways that affect closing arguments, voir dire selection, and expert testimony.
Interactive Tool
How Much Does the Bar
Change Your Recovery?
Enter total damages and your estimated fault percentage. The calculator shows recovery under pure-comparative law vs the enacted Article 51 mostly-at-fault bar, for a case with one defendant.
Pure Comparative Baseline
Recovery reduced but never barred; still generally applies outside Article 51.
$375,000
$500,000 × (100% − 25%) = $375,000
Article 51 Fault Bar
Recovery reduced, but $0 if the claimant is more than 50% at fault, in motor-vehicle PI actions subject to Article 51 and commenced on or after May 26, 2026.
$375,000
$500,000 × (100% − 25%) = $375,000 (fault ≤ 50%)
Calculator illustrates the comparative-negligence offset only. It assumes a single defendant. Actual recovery depends on policy limits, joint-and-several apportionment under CPLR §1601 and §1602 (which the 2026 law did not change), the number of defendants, and the specific liability theories pleaded. This is not legal advice. Call us for a free, case-specific analysis.
How New York Became a Pure-Comparative Outlier — and Why That Matters
New York's pure comparative negligence framework was not always the law. Before 1975, New York applied contributory negligence as an absolute defense. Under contributory negligence, any plaintiff fault at all, no matter how small, completely barred recovery. A pedestrian who stepped off a curb a half-second before the walk signal could be denied recovery against a drunk driver doing 60 in a school zone. The doctrine came to American courts from English common law in the nineteenth century and has long been criticized as too harsh on plaintiffs; today only four states and the District of Columbia still follow it.
In 1975, following the Court of Appeals' decision in Dole v Dow Chem. Co. (30 NY2d 143 [1972]), the Legislature "abolished contributory negligence and assumption of risk as absolute defenses," as the Court later described it in Trupia v Lake George Cent. School Dist. (14 NY3d 392 [2010]). Chapter 69 of the Laws of 1975 added CPLR §1411, which reduces a claimant's damages by the claimant's share of culpable conduct but does not bar recovery, and CPLR §1413 applies the rule to causes of action accruing on or after September 1, 1975. New York chose the pure form: no percentage of claimant fault cuts off recovery.
Pure comparative negligence proved durable. Over the following five decades, the Court of Appeals refined its mechanics through cases like Arbegast v Board of Educ. of S. New Berlin Cent. School (65 NY2d 161 [1985]) and Trupia, on how far assumption of risk survives the 1975 statute, and a deep precedential record on what counts as plaintiff conduct that reduces (versus bars) recovery. The doctrine became fundamental to how New York PI cases are valued, settled, and tried. Insurance reserves are calculated against it. Settlement multipliers assume it. The entire infrastructure of plaintiff and defense practice in this state is built on the assumption that a plaintiff who is 60% at fault will still recover 40% of damages.
The enacted Article 51 carveout departs from that 1975 choice for motor-vehicle personal-injury cases. The Governor's May 27, 2026 release presented the change as one that "will put New York in line with most other states." Outside Article 51, the 1975 rule still governs.
Three Worked Examples — How the 51% Bar Changes Long Island Cases
The recovery calculator above runs a single set of numbers. The cases I see in practice are rarely that clean — comparative-fault disputes turn on photographs, witness statements, surveillance footage, and the jury's intuitive read of who could have prevented the accident. These three examples are hypotheticals built on common Nassau and Suffolk County fact patterns. Each shows the result under both rules: pure comparative fault, which governs every action commenced before May 26, 2026 and every case outside Article 51, and CPLR 1411(b) for an Article 51 action commenced on or after that date.
Example 1 — Car on Sunrise Highway
Lane-change collision with a contested fault apportionment
Driver of an insured sedan eastbound on Sunrise Highway in Wantagh, passing on the right at approximately 50 mph in a 45 zone. A Ford F-150 in the center lane changes into the right lane without signaling, striking the sedan. Total damages stipulated at $1,200,000 (severe orthopedic injuries, surgery, lost wages). Both drivers are covered persons under Insurance Law §5102(j), so this is an action subject to Article 51.
Jury fault apportionment: 55% plaintiff (passing on the right at speed in violation of VTL §1180), 45% defendant (unsafe lane change).
- Pure comparative (CPLR 1411(a); actions commenced before May 26, 2026): Recovery = $1,200,000 × 45% = $540,000.
- CPLR 1411(b) (actions commenced on or after May 26, 2026): Plaintiff's culpable conduct is greater than the defendant's → $0 recovery. Difference of $540,000.
Practitioner read: This case would have been filed, tried, and settled under pure-comparative law. Under the Article 51 bar, the whole case rides on whether the plaintiff's share lands above or below the defendant's, and plaintiff's counsel does that fault math at intake. Put the same plaintiff on a motorcycle and the answer is less certain: a motorcycle is excluded from the no-fault definition of "motor vehicle" (Insurance Law §5102(f)), so a motorcyclist is generally not a "covered person" under §5102(j), and the statute does not say whether a motorcyclist's own suit against a car driver is an action "subject to article fifty-one."
Example 2 — Slip and fall at a Hempstead supermarket
Open-and-obvious hazard with documented manager negligence
Customer slips on a spilled jug of motor oil in the automotive aisle at a Nassau County supermarket. Surveillance footage shows the spill on the floor for 27 minutes before the slip, with no cone, no caution sign, no employee in the area. Plaintiff was looking at her phone, walked directly through the spill, and did not register the visible oil pool. Defense argues 50/50 apportionment under open-and-obvious doctrine. Total damages: $400,000 (hip fracture requiring partial replacement, six months of physical therapy).
Jury fault apportionment (close case): 52% plaintiff (failure to maintain reasonable lookout), 48% defendant (failure to inspect/maintain premises).
- Pure comparative (CPLR 1411(a)): Recovery = $400,000 × 48% = $192,000.
- CPLR 1411(b): Does not apply. A supermarket slip-and-fall is not an action subject to Insurance Law Article 51, so the result is the same $192,000 whenever the action is commenced. No difference.
Practitioner read: The 52/48 jury verdict turns on inches in the record — whether the plaintiff was looking at her phone for 4 seconds vs 8 seconds, whether the oil pool was visible from 6 feet vs 12 feet. Because premises cases stay under pure comparative fault, each percentage point only reduces the award; there is no line to push the plaintiff over. Move the same 52/48 split into a car crash commenced after May 26, 2026 and the plaintiff recovers nothing. That contrast is the whole reform in one example.
Example 3 — Rear-end collision on the LIE
Innocent plaintiff, low-fault apportionment
Plaintiff stopped in traffic on the Long Island Expressway eastbound near Exit 49. Defendant rear-ends plaintiff at approximately 35 mph (defendant texting; phone records confirm). Plaintiff's brake lights were functional; no sudden stop. Total damages: $300,000 (cervical disc herniation, surgery deferred). The case-law following-driver presumption applies (VTL §1129 sets the following-distance duty).
Jury fault apportionment: 0% plaintiff, 100% defendant.
- Pure comparative (CPLR 1411(a)): Recovery = $300,000 × 100% = $300,000.
- CPLR 1411(b): Applies (an Article 51 action), but the plaintiff has no culpable conduct to compare. Recovery = $300,000 × 100% = $300,000. No difference.
Practitioner read: The Article 51 bar reaches this case and changes nothing. Rear-end collisions with the following-driver presumption are the prototype no-fault-on-plaintiff cases, and innocent passengers are in the same position. Workers under Labor Law §240 and medical-malpractice plaintiffs are unaffected for a different reason: their actions are not subject to Article 51, so CPLR 1411(b) never applies to them.
Who Wins and Who Loses Under the 51% Bar
The 51% bar's distributional impact is not uniform — it falls heavily on certain case types and lightly on others. Understanding where your case sits on this map is the most useful thing a NY plaintiff or counsel can do right now.
Hit Hardest
Plaintiffs With Credible Comparative-Fault Arguments
- Jaywalking pedestrians struck by speeding drivers (defense argues 50-60% plaintiff fault). A pedestrian struck by an insured vehicle is a "covered person" under Insurance Law §5102(j).
- Drivers in lane-change, left-turn and intersection crashes where both sides have a credible fault story.
- Intoxicated rideshare passengers in multi-defendant cases where alcohol is documented.
- Drivers whose own conduct is on video: dashcam, traffic-camera or phone footage of speed, a missed signal or a phone in hand.
- Motorcyclists in lane-splitting or aggressive-passing incidents, if their actions are held to be "subject to article fifty-one" (see Example 1; the text does not answer it).
Mostly Unaffected
Plaintiffs in Low-Fault Cases
- Rear-end collision victims (case-law presumption of following-driver fault; VTL §1129 sets the following-distance duty).
- Innocent passengers with no liability exposure.
- Workers under Labor Law §240 — absolute liability is unaffected; the action is not subject to Article 51.
- Slip-and-fall and other premises plaintiffs — outside Article 51, so CPLR 1411(a) still reduces but never bars recovery (see Example 2).
- Medical malpractice and product-liability plaintiffs — outside Article 51 as well.
- Any plaintiff whose action was commenced before May 26, 2026 — Part EE applies only to actions commenced on or after that date.
Joint Liability Cases — Unchanged
The joint-and-several change did not pass (corrected June 11, 2026 — earlier coverage, including ours, reported a CPLR §1602(6) repeal that does not appear in the final text). An Uber/Lyft passenger struck in a multi-vehicle crash where the passenger has 0% fault is protected from the claimant-fault bar, and deep-pocket recovery from a low-fault solvent motor-vehicle defendant remains fully available under pre-existing joint-and-several rules. Watch future sessions — the proposal may return.
The Insurance Carrier Playbook Now That the Bar Is Law
The bar has been in force since May 26, 2026 for every Article 51 personal-injury action commenced on or after that date. The question for a plaintiff with a pending or potential New York motor-vehicle claim is no longer whether it passes; it is how the defense uses it. Florida's HB 837, approved March 24, 2023, is the nearest recent comparison, though it changed many rules at once (fault, limitations, attorney fees, medical-damages evidence), so no single result there can be traced to the fault bar alone.
Here are three defense moves New York practitioners should expect in Article 51 cases:
Move 1
Reserve recalculation
Expect carriers to re-evaluate claims where the claimant's fault could land near or above the defendant's. For carriers, that can mean smaller payouts authorized at claims-department review; for plaintiffs, it means harder settlement negotiations in close-liability cases.
Move 2
Comparative-fault expert ramp
Expect defense counsel to retain accident-reconstruction experts in cases that would not have warranted the cost under pure comparative. The math is simple: if an expert's opinion moves a single-defendant apportionment from 48% to 52%, a $400,000 case becomes a $0 case. Plaintiffs should expect a defense expert push in close Article 51 cases.
Move 3
Early-MSJ aggression
Expect earlier summary-judgment motions on comparative fault, made after fact depositions. The argument: if undisputed testimony establishes that the claimant was more at fault than the defendant, the case can be dismissed before trial. In a New York Article 51 action, the motion is made under CPLR §3212: the defendant argues the record shows, as a matter of law, that the claimant's culpable conduct is greater than the defendant's.
What this means for Long Island plaintiffs today. For a motor-vehicle injury action commenced on or after May 26, 2026, the fight over your share of fault starts at the first claim call. Expect recorded-statement questions aimed at your speed, your lookout and your phone; reconstruction experts retained earlier; and summary-judgment motions on fault after depositions. The window for a pure-comparative settlement closed for new filings on May 26, 2026. What is left is the record: the evidence that keeps your share of fault at or below the defendant's has to be gathered now.
The Pre-Enactment vs Post-Enactment Timing Question
With the bar in force, the most important provision is the effective-date clause. Part EE, section 4: "This act shall take effect immediately and shall be applicable to all actions and proceedings commenced on or after such date." Chapter 58 was signed May 26, 2026, so the bar governs actions and proceedings commenced on or after May 26, 2026.
- Crashes and lawsuits on or after May 26, 2026. The Article 51 bar applies to qualifying motor-vehicle personal-injury actions commenced on or after that date.
- Crashes before May 26, 2026, sued on after it. The statute says "actions and proceedings commenced," not "accidents occurring." As written, an older crash filed on or after May 26, 2026 is under CPLR 1411(b). The text does not carve out older crashes; any argument that the bar should not reach one has to be made in the case itself.
- Actions commenced before May 26, 2026. These are outside section 4. CPLR 1411 as it read before the amendment, pure comparative fault with no bar, governs them, and the other Part EE changes (the 90/180-day serious-injury category deletion, fault-first trials, the $100,000 cap) do not apply to them either.
The practical operating advice: the filing date no longer avoids the bar. Every motor-vehicle personal-injury action filed today is filed under CPLR 1411(b). What still moves the result is the fault record: preserve the evidence, find the witnesses, and get the footage before it is overwritten.
The same logic applies to Notice of Claim filings against government defendants under GML §50-e. The notice deadline runs on its own clock regardless of tort-reform timing; if you have a potential government defendant in a comparative-fault case (road defect, municipal vehicle, public-school premises), the notice of claim is due within 90 days after the claim arises, a late notice needs the court's leave under §50-e(5), and the reform doesn't extend either.
How Florida and New Jersey Got Here
Florida
HB 837 (March 2023)
Pure comparative → modified comparative bar. Fla. Stat. §768.81(6): in a negligence action, "any party found to be greater than 50 percent at fault for his or her own harm may not recover any damages," except in medical-negligence cases. Similar threshold, but broader than New York's Article 51-specific rule. The same law cut the negligence limitations period from four years to two.
Aftermath: Florida's insurance regulator quotes Progressive's September 2025 SEC filing: "Since Florida insurance reform was enacted in early 2023, we have seen lower loss costs on certain types of personal auto accident claims and favorable reserve development." The filing credits the reform package as a whole, not the fault bar alone.
New Jersey
NJSA §2A:15-5.1
Modified comparative fault since 1973 (L. 1973, c. 146). Contributory negligence does not bar recovery if it "was not greater than the negligence of the person against whom recovery is sought or was not greater than the combined negligence of the persons against whom recovery is sought." A plaintiff at exactly 50% still recovers half; above 50% recovers nothing.
Note: The structure is close to New York's new CPLR 1411(b), which also compares the claimant's fault with the defendant's and with the defendants' combined fault.
New York (Enacted)
L. 2026, ch. 58, Part EE
Narrower than both. CPLR 1411(b) bars a claimant whose culpable conduct is greater than the defendant's or the defendants' combined conduct, but only in personal-injury actions subject to Insurance Law Article 51 commenced on or after May 26, 2026. Labor Law §240, premises, malpractice and product cases stay under pure comparative fault in CPLR 1411(a).
Watch: How courts read "subject to article fifty-one" (motorcyclists, mixed motor-vehicle and premises claims) and how the single-defendant comparison works with several defendants.
Tips From the Author
What I Tell Clients
About the 50% Bar Now in Force
— Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.
The 2026 bar was enacted as Part EE of the budget, chapter 58 of the Laws of 2026, signed May 26, 2026; the Governor's May 27 release cites Florida's 2023 reform. It is an Article 51 motor-vehicle carveout, not a universal rewrite of New York comparative negligence, and the enacted version dropped the CPLR 1602(6) repeal that the January budget bill had carried.
What I tell clients: the bar matters most for cases where the comparative-fault apportionment lands close to the dividing line. If your case is a classic rear-end collision and you were stopped at a light, the bar will not affect you. If you were passing on the right at speed and the other driver cut over without signaling, the bar can end your case. The middle band is where the change is felt. If you slipped in a store or fell on a construction site, the bar does not apply at all.
Practical advice for plaintiffs with pending or imminent claims:
- 1. Know which rule your case is under. An action commenced before May 26, 2026 stays under pure comparative fault. A motor-vehicle injury action subject to Insurance Law Article 51 and commenced on or after that date is under CPLR 1411(b), no matter when the crash happened. Filing sooner no longer avoids the bar; it does get evidence preserved and witnesses found while memories hold.
- 2. Document the defendant's conduct affirmatively. The strongest defense to a comparative-fault apportionment north of 50% is a clean record showing the defendant's conduct was the dominant cause. Photographs, speed estimates, surveillance footage, witness statements — all of these compress your apportionment number.
- 3. Plead all available liability theories. If §240 applies, plead it. If §241(6) applies, plead it. CPLR 1411(b) does not reach §240 claims, because it is limited to actions subject to Insurance Law Article 51, and §241(6) statutory-negligence claims have different comparative-fault dynamics than common-law negligence.
Frequently Asked Questions
CPLR §1411 Reform Status & Practitioner Questions
What is the 2026 Article 51 mostly-at-fault bar in New York?
It is CPLR 1411(b), added by Part EE of chapter 58 of the Laws of 2026. In any action to recover damages for personal injury subject to Insurance Law article 51, the claimant's culpable conduct bars recovery if it "is greater than the culpable conduct of the person against whom recovery is sought or is greater than the combined culpable conduct of the persons against whom recovery is sought." Every other case stays under CPLR 1411(a): the claimant's fault reduces the award but does not bar it.
Has the 50% bar actually passed in New York?
Yes. A10008-C (substituted for S9008-C) passed both houses and was signed as chapter 58 of the Laws of 2026 on May 26, 2026. Part EE, section 3, amended CPLR 1411 to add subsection (b). The Governor's release announcing the package is dated May 27, 2026. It is not a universal 50% bar: it reaches only personal-injury actions subject to Insurance Law article 51.
When did the bar take effect?
May 26, 2026. Part EE, section 4: "This act shall take effect immediately and shall be applicable to all actions and proceedings commenced on or after such date." The test is the date the action is commenced, not the date of the crash. An action commenced before May 26, 2026 stays under the pure comparative rule; an action commenced on or after that date is under the bar, even for an older crash.
Does the 50% bar apply to Labor Law §240 construction cases?
Not by its terms. CPLR 1411(b) is limited to personal-injury actions subject to Insurance Law article 51, the motor-vehicle no-fault article. A Labor Law §240(1) claim stays under CPLR 1411(a), and the Court of Appeals has held that a worker's comparative negligence is not a defense to a §240(1) claim (Blake v Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of N.Y. City, 1 NY3d 280 [2003]). See our companion analysis at our Labor Law §240 reform page.
Who is hurt most by the 50% bar?
Claimants in Article 51 motor-vehicle cases where the defense has a credible argument that the claimant was more at fault than the defendant, or more at fault than the defendants combined. The clearest examples are disputed-liability crashes: pedestrians struck outside a crosswalk, lane-change and intersection collisions, intoxicated-driver scenarios, and other cases where the claimant's own conduct becomes the defense's main theme.
Who benefits from the 50% bar?
Defendants in motor-vehicle personal-injury actions commenced on or after May 26, 2026, and the carriers that insure them: drivers, vehicle owners, rideshare and delivery fleets, and commercial truck operators. Product-liability, premises-liability and medical-malpractice defendants do not get the bar. Those actions are not subject to Insurance Law article 51, so CPLR 1411(a) still reduces the plaintiff's award without barring it.
Does the Article 51 bar interact with the joint-and-several liability changes?
No — because the joint-and-several change did not pass. Neither the broad CPLR §1601 rewrite nor the narrower repeal of CPLR §1602(6) (the motor-vehicle exception to Article 16) appears in the final enacted text. §1602(6) remains in force, so low-fault motor-vehicle defendants remain subject to joint-and-several liability exactly as before. The only enacted fault rule for motor-vehicle plaintiffs is the CPLR §1411(b) mostly-at-fault bar.
How does the enacted bar compare to Florida HB 837 and New Jersey law?
Florida HB 837 (ch. 2023-15, approved March 24, 2023) amended Fla. Stat. §768.81 so that in a negligence action "any party found to be greater than 50 percent at fault for his or her own harm may not recover any damages," except in medical-negligence cases. The same law cut the negligence statute of limitations from four years to two and changed other civil rules. New Jersey has used a modified rule since 1973: under NJSA §2A:15-5.1, contributory negligence does not bar recovery if it "was not greater than" the defendant's negligence or the defendants' combined negligence. New York's enacted rule is narrower: CPLR §1411(b) applies to personal-injury actions subject to Insurance Law Article 51, not to every negligence case.
What should plaintiffs in pending cases do right now?
Three things. First, find out which rule governs: an action commenced before May 26, 2026 stays under pure comparative fault, and a motor-vehicle injury action subject to Article 51 commenced on or after that date is under CPLR 1411(b), whatever the crash date. Second, preserve liability evidence now, because in an Article 51 case your share of fault can end the case. Third, document your own conduct: a clean record of safety-rule compliance and a clear chain of causation keeps your share below the defendant's. Call us at (516) 750-0595 about a pending or potential New York PI claim.
Where can I read the actual bill text?
The enacted text is bill A10008-C (S9008-C), chapter 58 of the Laws of 2026, Part EE, on the New York Senate's site at nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2025/A10008. Section 3 of Part EE amends CPLR 1411 and section 4 sets the effective date. The current CPLR 1411, with subsection (b), is at nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/CVP/1411.
Continue Reading
Deep Analysis
Hochul Tort Reform 2026
Editorial-length analysis of the enacted package — the policy debate, Florida HB 837 case studies, and the strategic implications for plaintiffs and defendants.
Cluster Cornerstone
Scaffold Law §240 Reform
How the enacted Article 51 fault bar interacts with Labor Law §240 absolute liability — and why §240 likely survives the reform.
Practice Hub
Long Island Personal Injury
The full PI practice — car, truck, premises liability, medical malpractice, wrongful death, construction, and more.
Archive
Comparative Fault — Car Accident NY
CPLR §1411 framework, jury apportionment doctrine, and camera-evidence strategy under the pure-comparative rule of CPLR §1411(a).
Archive
Partially-At-Fault Accident
Pure-comparative explainer — how the existing CPLR §1411 framework works in practice and where partial-fault plaintiffs recover today.
Interactive Tool
Settlement Calculator
Estimate the range of a New York PI case under the current comparative-fault framework, with a fault slider that mirrors CPLR §1411 mechanics.
If You Have a Pending New York PI Claim
Fault Evidence Matters More Than Ever.
Call Today.
In a New York motor-vehicle injury action subject to Insurance Law Article 51 and commenced on or after May 26, 2026, a claimant who is more at fault than the defendant recovers nothing. We will tell you which rule governs your case and what evidence to preserve to keep your share of fault where it belongs.
No fee unless we win. Available 24/7. Hablamos Español.