Executive Summary

New York’s Litigation Environment

In a wide range of areas, New York law subjects residents and businesses to greater liability than other states. Consider, for example, that:

Unlike most other states, New York allows unlimited noneconomic and punitive damage awards. New York has among the most nuclear verdicts (i.e., verdicts $10 million or more) in personal injury and wrongful death cases in the country. Premises liability, medical liability, and auto accident trials most often result in verdicts at these high levels.[1]

Ironically, New York caps the amount a victim of a frivolous personal injury lawsuit can recover at just $10,000, a level that has not changed in over 40 years.[2]

Fraud appears to be rampant in New York with reports of staged auto accidents, construction-site injuries, and slip-and-fall claims.[3]

New York hosts among the most class action lawsuits.[4] The state is known for consumer class actions challenging food and beverage labeling,[5] which have tripled in recent years.[6]

New York families pay the second highest tort costs in the nation, over $7,000 per household, which is 67% above the national average of $4,207.[7]

Families pay the second highest tort costs, over $7,000 per household, 67% above the national average

In nearly every category of insurance coverage – from healthcare to construction – insurance premiums (and the losses that drive them) are higher in New York than any other state.[8] On average, New Yorkers pay over $4,000 annually for full auto coverage, nearly $1,500 above the national average and among the highest amounts in the country.[9]

New Yorkers pay over $4,000 annually for full auto coverage, nearly $1,500 above the national average

New York’s doctors and hospitals consistently face the highest medical liability payouts per capita and highest total payouts in the country,[10] affecting the availability of affordable healthcare.

For these reasons and others, the American Tort Reform Foundation has consistently named New York City a “Judicial Hellhole”—a jurisdiction that is systemically imbalanced against defendants in civil litigation.[11]

New York is Losing Residents & Businesses

Excessive lawsuits and liability impact both the affordability of living in New York and the competitiveness of New York’s businesses.

New York’s population is down about 3% since the start of the decade, even as the U.S. population rose by 2.6%.[12] New York faces the largest population decline of any state.[13] While some New Yorkers depart for more affordable living nearby, many leave for Florida and Texas,[14] which have adopted the types of reforms suggested in this paper. Over the past twenty years, New York has lost about 10% of its working-age population, a trend that is projected to continue.[15]

New York is also facing an exodus of businesses due to the rising cost of operating in the state. Major employers are trimming back their workforce and some businesses are moving their headquarters elsewhere.[16]

New York City lost about 5,000 businesses since last spring, the largest decline since the pandemic. Small business owners have been particularly hard hit.[17]

Unless there is a course correction, businesses facing a scarcity of labor and high costs may shift their operations to other states.

Longstanding Problem Areas

This paper examines five areas in which New York’s liability laws are out of the mainstream and suggests reforms that would foster a more balanced litigation environment and advance the interests of New Yorkers.

Comparative fault. Under New York’s “pure comparative fault” system, individuals who are largely responsible for their own injuries can still recover damages, a minority approach among states. This approach rewards reckless behavior.

New York should amend CPLR § 1411 to adopt “modified comparative fault,” which bars recovery when a plaintiff is primarily at fault, while reducing damages proportionally in other cases. The FY 2026-27 budget includes this change, but for motor vehicle accident claims only.

Joint and several liability. In New York, a person can sue and recover the full amount of damages from a single defendant, even when that party bears only minimal responsibility – a system most states have abandoned or limited. While New York distinguishes between economic and noneconomic damages, significant exceptions remain—particularly in auto cases—often leaving low-fault defendants liable for disproportionate shares. This framework incentivizes “deep pocket” lawsuits.

New York should amend CPLR § 1601 to take an approach consistent with states such as New Jersey and Pennsylvania. At minimum, it should eliminate the auto exception found in CPLR § 1602.

The Scaffold Law. New York is the only state that imposes “absolute liability” on property owners and contractors when a worker experiences an elevation-related injury, such as a fall or a falling object. The Scaffold Law raises the cost of projects ranging from school construction to affordable housing.

New York should enact a new provision of the Civil Practice Law & Rules that permits juries to consider the responsibility of all parties involved in a construction accident, just as they do in other personal injury cases.

Predatory and undisclosed litigation funding. New York recently took its first steps to regulate “lawsuit loans,” but significant gaps remain in addressing both consumer protection and broader litigation funding practices.

New York should amend Article 10 of the Financial Services Law to strengthen protections against predatory lawsuit loans, regulate commercial litigation funding, and require full disclosure of all litigation funding agreements.

An excessive judgment interest rate. New York applies a 9% interest rate to judgments, which the state has not adjusted in 45 years. This high rate penalizes those who defend themselves in court.

New York should amend CPLR § 5004 to replace this fixed rate with one indexed to market rates, as in most other states.

Additional Opportunities for Reform

The paper explores three other helpful measures, enacted as part of the FY 2026-27 state budget, that should help make driving in New York more affordable.

Expand efforts to combat fraudulent lawsuits and insurance claims.

More objectively define what constitutes a “serious injury,” as provided by Insurance Law 5102(d), to avoid unnecessary auto accident lawsuits that should be compensated through the PIP system.

Limit payouts to drivers who were uninsured or engaged in illegal conduct at the time of an accident.

Avoid Going in the Wrong Direction

Collectively, this paper’s recommendations aim to improve fairness, reduce litigation, and improve affordability for all New Yorkers.

Equally important to adopting positive reforms is for New York to avoid policies that expand litigation or liability. Legislators should:

Reject invitations to adopt private rights of action, which can shift enforcement from publicly accountable regulators to private attorneys and contribute to excessive and often speculative lawsuits.

Abandon proposals to broadly expand emotional harm damages available in wrongful death cases, which Governor Hochul has vetoed four times.

Not further expand the state’s consumer protection law, which is already a significant source of excessive litigation that primarily benefits the attorneys who file these claims.

End legislative efforts to subject out-of-state companies to lawsuits in New York courts for conduct unrelated to the state.

Reject the latest plaintiffs’ lawyer wish list, wrapped in a recently introduced bill.

Move to “Modified” Comparative Fault

In New York, a person who is largely responsible for his or her own injury can still recover damages. This system, known as pure comparative fault, encourages personal injury attorneys to file or threaten lawsuits by irresponsible plaintiffs. Few states follow this approach, which New York is on the cusp of replacing.

The Shift from Contributory Negligence to Comparative Fault

Traditionally, a person who was even minimally responsible for her or her own injury could not recover damages. A plaintiff’s contributory negligence provided a complete defense to liability. Today, just four states and the District of Columbia retain this system, which can have harsh results for plaintiffs.[18]

Beginning in the late 1960s, states began to abandon contributory negligence for comparative fault. Under this alternative, a person whose conduct contributed to his or her injury can recover damages, but the law reduces the amount by the plaintiff’s percentage of fault.

Comparative fault laws vary from state to state. About a dozen states take the most plaintiff-friendly approach, known as “pure” comparative fault.[19] Under this system, a plaintiff can recover 1% of his or her damages even if that person is 99% at fault for his or her own harm. This swings the pendulum in the complete opposite direction from contributory negligence.

Two-thirds of states have instead adopted “modified comparative fault,” including all of New York’s neighbors.[20] Generally, under this approach, a person’s damages are reduced to reflect his or her degree of fault, but when a jury finds the plaintiff is the primary cause of harm, 50% or 51% responsible depending on the state, he or she cannot recover damages.

New York Law: An Outlier

New York is one of the few states that has the most plaintiff-friendly approach. The Empire State shifted from contributory negligence to pure comparative fault in 1975 with the adoption of CPLR § 1411.

Implications

Pure comparative fault rewards risky behavior by allowing plaintiffs to recover damages even when they are substantially at fault for their own injuries. It also encourages speculative litigation by providing an incentive for plaintiffs’ lawyers to “roll the dice” by bringing or threatening lawsuits on behalf of people who are responsible for their own injuries. They know that a person or business, or insurer, is likely to settle the claim given the high cost of litigating a case to verdict and the likelihood of a monetary award.

By way of contrast, modified comparative fault facilitates settlements and discourages weak claims because personal injury lawyers realize that there is at least some risk that a reckless client may recover nothing.

This change has contributed to substantial auto insurance rate reductions for Florida drivers

These concerns are particularly salient in the auto context. For example, Florida, struggling with among the highest auto insurance costs in the nation, is the most recent state to replace pure comparative fault with a modified comparative fault system.[21] Over the past two years, this change has contributed to substantial auto insurance rate reductions for Florida drivers and greater competition as more insurers enter or reenter the market.[22]

Recommendation

New York should join the mainstream by amending CPLR § 1411 to adopt a modified comparative fault system. In May 2026, Governor Hochul signed a transportation budget bill taking this approach, but that applies only to motor vehicle accident claims.  This is a significant step forward. Ultimately, the same rule should apply to all tort claims.

Better Align Liability with Responsibility

Joint and several liability allows a plaintiff to collect the full amount of a judgment from a single defendant whose conduct contributed, in any way, to an accident. This law encourages personal injury lawyers to sue as many parties as possible, especially those viewed as having the most money, even if that party is least to blame. Most states have abandoned this system, though New York keeps it in place in many cases.

Most States Have Abandoned
Joint & Several Liability

Most states have abandoned or sharply limited joint and several liability. Today, only a few states apply full joint and several liability, most of which also retain contributory negligence as a defense.[23]

Roughly half of states have adopted “pure” several liability, in which a defendant pays its fair share of damages based on the percentage of fault assigned to that defendant by the jury.[24] About a dozen states have abolished joint and several liability when a defendant’s level of fault is below a certain threshold, typically when for those that are less than 50% or 51% at fault.[25] New Jersey and Pennsylvania subject only defendants that are 60% or more at fault to paying a plaintiffs’ full damage award.[26]

New York Law

New York moved away from full joint and several liability in 1986 when it adopted CPLR § 1601. It is now one of a handful of states that distinguishes between economic and noneconomic damages in what rule applies.[27]

Under New York law, minimally culpable defendants are liable for a plaintiff’s full economic damages, such as medical expenses and lost income. For noneconomic damages, such as an award for pain and suffering, low-fault defendants are liable only for their actual assessed share of liability unless they are more than 50% responsible, in which case they may be required to pay the entire award.

Under New York law, minimally culpable defendants are liable for a plaintiff’s full economic damages

In addition, New York retains full joint and several liability in several areas, including personal injury claims stemming from auto accidents.[28]

New York law also lifts its limited restriction on joint and several liability if a jury finds a defendant acted recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally.[29]

The practical effect of these and other exceptions is that many individuals and businesses are subject to more than their fair share of a plaintiff’s damages.

Implications

Joint and several liability encourages personal injury lawyers to target “deep pocket” businesses or those that may have the greatest insurance coverage, even when others are far more culpable for a client’s injury.

In the auto liability context, this means that if a plaintiff obtains a $1 million noneconomic damage award and there are two defendants—one with millions of insurance coverage that is found 1% responsible and one with a $100,000 policy at is 99% at fault—the first defendant must pay $900,000 (rather than $10,000 based on its share of responsibility).

Cities and towns in New York are forced to pay a plaintiff’s entire damage award on the basis that, for example, a traffic signal,[30] sign,[31] or city employee,[32] in some remote way, contributed to the accident.

Imposing joint and several liability has fiscal implications not only for businesses, but also for taxpayers.

Cities and towns in New York are forced to pay a plaintiff’s entire damage award on the basis that, for example, a traffic signal,[33] sign,[34] or city employee,[35] in some remote way, contributed to the accident.

Recommendation

New York should amend CPLR § 1601 to adopt pure several liability for all damages or retain joint and several liability only when a defendant is 60% or more at fault for a plaintiff’s injury, similar to New Jersey and Pennsylvania, or 50% or more at fault, which other states follow.

It should also eliminate most exceptions that retain full joint and several liability in some circumstances, including the carve out for auto accident claims in CPLR § 1602.

Governor Hochul supported a move in this direction, which she expected to result in lower auto insurance premiums.[36] This proposal, however, was not included in the 2027 FY state budget agreement, leaving an opportunity for future action.

End Absolute Liability Under the “Scaffold Law”

The cost of construction projects in New York is significantly higher than in other states because of New York’s unique century-old “Scaffold Law,” which pre-dates the workers’ compensation system and imposes “absolute liability” on property owners and contractors. From building schools to affordable housing, the Scaffold Law imposes steep costs not experienced in any other state, while providing no safety benefit.

New York’s Scaffold Law

New York enacted the Scaffold Law, N.Y. Labor Law § 240 in 1885 to safeguard construction workers who found themselves subject to increased danger while working on the city’s skyscrapers and other projects.[37]

The intent of the law was to reduce height-related deaths and injuries by mandating the use of safety equipment. Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations now largely serve this function.[38]

Even a worker’s impaired condition because of drug or alcohol use at work is not a factor in liability.

While the text of the Scaffold Law does not mention creating a right for workers to sue, the New York Court of Appeals has interpreted the statute to impose “absolute liability” for elevation or gravity-related risk, such as falls and falling objects, on construction sites,[39] including buildings, bridges, or elevated highways.

Over time, courts have vastly expanded this liability.[40] Juries cannot consider a worker’s carelessness or recklessness, which courts consider irrelevant. Even a worker’s impaired condition because of drug or alcohol use at work is not a factor in liability.[41]

In other states, and in New York for other on-the-job injuries, workers’ compensation provides no-fault payments for an injured workers’ medical care and provides benefits based on a percentage of lost wages while a person is disabled, while limiting an employer’s liability.[42] The Scaffold Law, however, pre-dates workers’ compensation and falls outside of its liability constraints.

It subjects those who work in the construction industry and beyond to litigation over work-related injuries that would not be filed in court elsewhere. Plaintiffs may seek past and future lost wages and medical expenses as well as unlimited awards for pain and suffering that are highly subjective and unpredictable.

The Scaffold Law applies in situations that most people would not consider an elevation-related construction risk. Examples include falls from a sixteen-inch tall boulder on a basement floor,[43] a flatbed truck,[44] a ladder when installing carpeting on the walls of a recording studio,[45] and a ladder while disassembling a chupah, a canopy for a Jewish wedding, at a catering hall.[46]

Scaffold Law applies in situations that most people would not consider an elevation-related construction risk. Examples include falls from a sixteen-inch tall boulder on a basement floor

Property owners and contractors named in Scaffold Law claims can defend themselves on the basis that the worker was the sole proximate cause of the accident,[47] but that is an extraordinarily high standard to meet.[48] A worker may be 99% responsible for his or her own accident, but the owner or contractor must still pay 100% of the damages.

A worker may be 99% responsible for his or her own accident, but the owner or contractor must still pay 100% of the damages.

Contractors who invest in safety equipment, run strong safety programs, and enforce the rules face the same liability under the Scaffold Law as those who cut corners and put workers at risk. For example, a nonprofit housing developer can face liability even when a worker removes his safety harness to take a shortcut into a construction site that the contractor explicitly prohibited.[49]

As an expert on New York construction law observed, “Over the course of the last century, the court has taken a statute designed to protect workers who were unable to protect themselves from the extraordinary hazards of working at or raising materials and loads to heights, and turned it into a remedy for every injury caused by gravity that a safety device might have, in hindsight, prevented.”[50]

No other state has a comparable statute.

Implications

Because of over a century of judicial expansion of the Scaffold Law, these claims have become more frequent. Cornell University researchers showed that between 1990 and 2012, Scaffold Law cases rose 500% while the overall rate of injury decreased.[51]

Scaffold Law claims are among New York’s largest verdicts and settlements each year.[52]

According to Willis Towers Watson, an average Scaffold Law claim will settle for above $1 million, however, if there is a neck or back surgery alleged, the claim value averages between $2 million to $3 million, or more.[53]

Settlement values for these claims doubled between 2018 and 2023.[54]

The ease at which workers can recover large sums for on-the-job injuries has led to a lucrative market for lawsuits. Personal injury law firms distribute t-shirts, leaflets, and business cards at construction sites advertising their services.[55]

Many New York personal injury law firm websites devote sections to Scaffold Law claims, as they compete for these highly profitable cases. Some of these firms tout multi-million dollar verdicts and settlements.[56]

The law’s lax standards and the irrelevance of a workers’ fault for his or her own injuries have led to suspicious claims, particularly a surge of lawsuits alleging low-height falls, with no witnesses, filed by new workers.[57]

A media investigation identified dozens of construction injury lawsuits suspiciously filed by people purporting to live in the same apartment buildings and homes.[58]

Insurers have responded by filing several civil RICO lawsuits alleging schemes to capitalize on the Scaffold Law’s absolute liability by faking accidents and injuries.[59] These lawsuits generally allege that runners for law firms persuade vulnerable individuals to stage a fall, then send them to unscrupulous doctors for unnecessary surgeries to raise the settlement value with the cost covered by predatory lawsuit loans. One personal injury law firm sought to withdraw from hundreds of construction injury cases after questions were raised about the cases’ legitimacy.[60]

The Scaffold Law has consequences for New Yorkers, including a rise in costs for renters and homeowners.[61]

One recent study estimates that insurance costs for construction projects are two to five times higher in New York than other states and consume 8% to 10% of total development costs in New York, compared to just 2% to 4% in states like New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Illinois.[62]

The excessive liability imposed by this statute adversely affects projects ranging from affordable housing[63] to school construction.[64] It has added hundreds of millions of dollars to the cost of projects such as the Gov. Mario M. Cuomo Bridge[65] and Hudson River Tunnel construction project,[66] and impacts other major public projects such as Penn Station’s development and the Second Avenue Subway extension.[67]

It has even hindered disaster relief efforts.[68] As the New York Building Congress observed, the higher insurance costs necessitated by this law “means less money for roads, SUNY facilities, and other worthwhile construction projects sponsored by State agencies” as well as fewer classrooms and less money to improve public facilities.[69] It also means far less affordable housing units built each year.[70]

Due to the Scaffold Law, most national insurers do not write construction policies in New York. Some of the few remaining insurers have stopped writing policies in the last few years, and the number of carriers willing to write general liability insurance in New York continues to decline.[71]

Due to the Scaffold Law, most national insurers do not write construction policies in New York.

The Scaffold Law’s excessive liability does not lead to greater worker safety—quite the opposite. Absolute liability eliminates an incentive for employers to invest in workplace safety.[72] It also does not encourage workers to be careful, since they can recover in a lawsuit even when they engaged in reckless behavior, such as working while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.[73]

Recommendation

New York should enact a new section of the Civil Practice Law & Rules that applies the same rule of comparative negligence used in most personal injury cases to claims arising under the Scaffold Law.

This would allow juries to consider the responsibility of all parties involved in a construction accident—including whether the worker used safety equipment or devices provided at the job site, followed safety instructions, or was impaired by drugs or alcohol. Legislators have repeatedly introduced such bills.^[74]

Strengthen Litigation Funding Protections

New York recently enacted a law that makes progress in addressing litigation funding, particularly the kind that offers vulnerable individuals “fast cash” while they await a settlement in personal injury lawsuits. That law is a solid step forward, but New York needs to both strengthen this law and take additional steps to address the influx of hidden outside money into the state’s civil justice system.

The Lawsuit Loan Industry

A form of outside investment in litigation is referred to by lenders as “pre-settlement advances.” In these arrangements, lenders provide money to vulnerable consumers who have filed personal injury lawsuits, such as auto accident or slip-and-fall cases, for personal expenses.

Often, recovery is all but certain and, in some instances, the only question is when the settlement check will arrive.

Industry representatives say that the average loan is about $3,000 to $5,000,[75] but the amounts can be far greater. In exchange, many lenders charge high interest rates and fees. At payback, a consumer may owe the lender three, five, or even ten times the advanced amount.

There are many examples of harm to New Yorkers from predatory cash-for-lawsuit lending.[76] In one reported case, a Brooklynite who borrowed $27,000 while his slip-and-fall case was pending reportedly received just $111 of a $150,000 settlement after paying the lender and his attorney.[77]

Brooklynite borrowed $27,000 while his slip-and-fall case was pending and received just $111 of a $150,000 settlement

Even 9/11 first responders have been victims of such practices.[78] These arrangements are comparable to payday loans, but, lenders contend, lawsuit loans are not subject to the same usury laws that apply to payday lending.[79]

In addition, these arrangements can complicate the ability to resolve litigation as plaintiffs may reject reasonable settlement offers because they understandably expect to receive meaningful recovery from their lawsuit after paying the lender and attorney.

Lawsuits loans have also played a key role in fraudulent litigation in which plaintiffs are alleged to have staged accidents and then given high-interest loans to cover the cost of unnecessary surgeries, treatment, or rehabilitation.[80]

The Litigation Funding Act

Until recently, lawsuit loans were unregulated in New York. New York enacted the Litigation Funding Act in 2025, which it amended in 2026.[81]

Now, New York requires companies that engage in this form of lending to register with the Department of Financial Services. Contracts must contain certain information to better inform consumers about how much they may owe on what may seem like a small loan.

The law ensures that a consumer’s attorney is aware of the arrangement and reviews and signs the contract. Lenders are prohibited from engaging in conduct that poses conflicts of interest, such as by referring a person who takes a loan to a specific lawyer or medical provider or attempting to influence the litigation or its settlement.

The new law falls short, however, in preventing predatory rates. There is no limit on the interest rate or fees lenders can charge, no limit on the length of time during which interest can accumulate, and no real limit on the size of the loan.

There is no limit on the interest rate or fees lenders can charge

The legislation precludes lawsuit lenders from taking more than 25% of the plaintiff’s total recovery on top of the amount of the loaned amount, which is a helpful backstop, but still allows lenders to charge excessive rates and fees.

The law also allows cash advances of any amount so long as they do not exceed $500,000—100 times the level that the lawsuit loan industry claims is typical.

Still Unregulated & Undisclosed
Commercial Litigation Funding

In addition, the new law is severely limited in that it only applies to money provided to individuals who have pending lawsuits.

Despite its name, New York’s “Litigation Funding Act” does apply to money provided to law firms to cover litigation expenses. These arrangements, sometimes referred to as commercial litigation funding, are on the rise.

Commercial litigation funders range from publicly traded lenders to private equity and hedge funds. Investors may fund an individual case, but it is increasingly common for funders to finance a portfolio of cases, such as product liability or other mass tort lawsuits.[82]

The amount of these loans is typically in the millions of dollars.[83] Investing in litigation has quickly become a multi-billion-dollar industry.[84]

Investing in litigation has quickly become a multi-billion-dollar industry

Unregulated, hidden commercial litigation funding raises a wide range of concerns. These arrangements, even more so than cash advances, pose a significant risk of an outside party intruding on the ability of an attorney to independently represent his or her clients’ interests.

While litigation funders often contend that they do not influence litigation or settlement,[85] many situations have come to light that prove otherwise.[86]

A funder may direct attorneys to reject reasonable settlement offers that may be in a plaintiff’s best interest and hold out for a higher payment, for example. Clients may not even be aware that their attorneys have taken outside funding that will be repaid out of their settlements.

Litigation funders brag that they “make it hard and more expensive to settle cases,”[87] on average “double their money,” and sometimes walk away with more money from a case than the plaintiff.[88]

The presence of a hidden party with a financial interest in the litigation complicates the ability to resolve cases, erodes the incentive to litigate as efficiently as possible, and can inflate settlement demands and litigation costs.[89]

In addition, outside funding may hide the ulterior motives of those who are actually driving the litigation.[90]

Litigation funders brag that they walk away with more money from a case than the plaintiff.

It also provides an opportunity for foreign governments and entities, or others, to launder money,[91] obtain sensitive proprietary or national security information,[92] or engage in other nefarious conduct.

The Lack of Disclosure of
Litigation Funding in New York

Neither the Litigation Funding Act nor the courts require parties or law firms that accept funding from outside sources in exchange for a financial interest in the recovery to disclose that information to the court or other parties in the case.

New York courts rarely allow parties to obtain this information through the discovery process, often finding it not material to the claims or defenses in the action.[93]

As a result of this secrecy, the court, defendant, and other parties in the litigation are unaware that a hidden party is driving the litigation or complicating resolution of the case.

Nor can courts police predatory lending arrangements or identify and evaluate potential conflicts of interest if they do not know an outside funder with a stake in the outcome exists in the case.

Some courts in other states require disclosure of litigation funding, including federal courts in New Jersey and Delaware.[94]

In addition, a growing number of states have enacted legislation requiring parties to disclose arrangements in which an outside funder has a financial interest in the outcome of the litigation to the other parties, insurers, and/or the court.[95]

Recommendations

New York should strengthen the Litigation Funding Act, Article 10 of the Financial Services Law, to protect consumers from predatory lending by setting a maximum interest rate, and limits on the duration and amount of lawsuit loans.

It should also adopt safeguards for commercial litigation funding that prevent conflicts of interests and protect consumer recovery. All litigation funding agreements should be disclosed to the court and other parties.

Index the Judgment Interest Rate to the Market

New York should reduce its judgment interest rate from a fixed 9% to a level indexed to the market rate so that litigants are not penalized for defending themselves in court.

45 Years Without Adjustment

New York set its 9% rate, which applies to both pre- and post-judgment interest, in 1981,[96] when the average rate for the one-year U.S. Treasury bill was over 14%.[97]

It has remained unchanged for 45 years, even when prevailing market rates were below 2%. While interest rates have risen in recent years, they remain well below 9%.

New York set its 9% rate, in 1981, when the average rate for the one-year U.S. Treasury bill was over 14%

Implications

New York’s fixed rate is “both illogical and unfair” and “does not reflect the changing economic reality of the cost of money,” an advisory committee to the state’s chief administrative judge observed over a decade ago.[98]

An excessive judgment interest rate adds to the pressure on a defendant to settle litigation, regardless of the merits. It also weighs against appealing an erroneous court decision as interest continues to accumulate.

Interest on a judgment can accumulate quickly and reach into the hundreds of thousands—even millions—of dollars.

The time it takes to litigate a case is affected by many factors, including factors beyond a defendant’s control, such as the cooperativeness of plaintiff’s counsel, the complexity of the case, the trial court’s docket, or delays that a defendant did not cause and cannot control (such as court closures during the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting trial backlogs).

Post-judgment motions and appeals (which may be brought by the plaintiff, the defendant, or both) may also add time to the litigation. Appeals may face backlogs. The Appellate Division, Second Department, for example, the busiest state appellate court in the nation.[99]

New York’s interest rate not only penalizes private parties, but directly impacts city and county governments, which are often the targets of litigation, and, by extension, taxpayers.[100]

New Jersey eliminated a fixed 12% per annum rate in 1986

As the New York State Conference of Mayors has observed, “This excessively high interest rate drives up taxpayer costs.”[101]

Out of the Mainstream

Most states have abandoned high fixed judgment interest rates, making New York an outlier.

For example, New Jersey eliminated a fixed 12% per annum rate in 1986 and adopted a variable rate that, in 2026, is 4.5% on judgments exceeding $20,000.[102]

Pennsylvania applies a variable pre-judgment interest rate that is the prime rate plus one percent along with a fixed post-judgment interest rate of 6%.[103]

In recent years, other states have adopted similar approaches.[104] Only about a dozen states retain a fixed judgment interest rate at or above New York’s level.[105]

In addition, unlike New York where pre-judgment interest begins to accrue when at the earliest possible moment a cause of action exists, in nearly every other state, pre-judgment interest, if available, does not begin to accrue until a plaintiff files a lawsuit, serves a defendant, or a later date.[106]

Recommendation

Amending CPLR § 5004 to adopt a variable rate would bring New York into alignment with most other states.

This approach would not only protect civil defendants from excessive judgment interest awards, but safeguard plaintiffs from being undercompensated in the future should market rates rise.

It also eliminates the need for the legislature to periodically revisit and adjust the fixed rate (an increasing risk given the volatility of the contemporary interest rate environment).^[107]

Additional Opportunities to Make Auto Insurance More Affordable

Governor Hochul has reached an agreement with the legislature to enact a set of initiatives aimed at reducing auto insurance rates. This helpful package of legal reforms, includes updating New York’s comparative fault law, as discussed earlier, along with addressing three additional areas that unnecessarily drive up costs.

Stop Rampant Fraud

In 2025, the Department of Financial Services (DFS) recorded 43,811 suspected auto insurance fraud incidents, an 80% jump from 2020.[108]

There were also at least 1,729 staged crashes in New York State, an amount that has also been on the rise.[109] New York ranks second highest in the nation for incidents of staged fraud.[110]

New York ranks second highest in the nation for incidents of staged fraud.

In response, the enacted FY 2026-27 state budget includes anti-fraud measures targeting auto insurance as well as workers’ compensation schemes.[111] The new law provides that anyone who hires, requests, encourages, orchestrates, or invites another individual to stage a motor vehicle accident commits a fraudulent act.[112] This provision is intended to enable prosecutors to seek criminal penalties against any person involved in organizing a staged accident, not just the driver.[113]

Governor Hochul had proposed several other measures, which did not make it into the final bill, such as increasing the ability to prosecute others who facilitate staged accident claims such as by providing false medical diagnoses or treatment, doubling the 30-day period that New York Insurance Law 5105(a) provides insurers to investigate and report suspicious claims,[114] and raising criminal penalties for insurance fraud. These are potential areas for future action.

In addition, New York can do more to combat fraud in other contexts. For example, pending legislation would make staging a construction site accident a felony.[115]

Reduce Unnecessary Auto Accident Litigation

New York law should amend the threshold for allowing lawsuits seeking damages for “serious injury” outside the PIP system to eliminate vague language that leads to unnecessary litigation that drives up insurance rates.

New York is a no-fault state, which means that the primary coverage for medical benefits, lost wages, and other covered expenses for drivers and their passengers is provided by each driver’s own insurance, regardless of who is at fault in an auto accident.

This is handled through PIP coverage, which is mandatory in New York. If a person experiences a “serious injury” in an auto accident, however, he or she can seek compensation from a responsible party through the tort system, including noneconomic damages and economic losses exceeding PIP limits.

This approach is intended to provide prompt recovery for minor injuries following a crash, avoid litigation, and help keep insurance rates stable and affordable.

While New York’s definition of “serious injury” lists types of harm that all would agree should meet the threshold, it also includes temporary, subjective injuries.

For example, the definition includes a nonpermanent injury that prevents a person from performing usual and customary daily activities for 90 days during the 180 days immediately following an accident.[116]

This “90/180” category can be easily manipulated by, for example, a person finding a medical provider willing to certify that he or she cannot work or perform other activities for 90 days.

It is most often invoked in soft-tissue injury cases based largely on subjective complaints when objective evidence of an injury, such as diagnostic imaging, is lacking.[117]

The FY 2027 state budget agreement will amend Insurance Law 5102(d) to eliminate the “90/180” category.[118] This would provide greater consistency and predictability in auto accident claims and should lower costs that impact insurance premiums.[119]

Do Not Reward Bad Behavior

The enacted FY 2026-27 budget also includes Governor Hochul’s proposal to limit the ability of drivers who were uninsured, driving while impaired, or committing or fleeing a felony at the time of an accident to recover a large payout. These drivers can recover their full medical expenses and lost wages, but no more than $100,000 for pain and suffering.[120]

Proposals that Take New York in the Wrong Direction

It is important for New York to take positive steps that address the excessive liability and litigation abuse, some of which are highlighted in this paper. It is also important for New York to reject invitations that would take the Empire State in the wrong direction by unnecessarily adopting private rights of action, expanding damages, or increasing opportunities to bring lawsuits. These types of proposals, which have been recycled for years, serve the interests of attorneys, not the public.

No New Private Rights of Action

The legislature should closely scrutinize proposals that would provide new ways to sue in New York’s already highly litigious climate. When private rights of action are included in legislation, they deputize profit-motivated lawyers to enforce state law rather than keep authority in the hands of accountable public officials. These proposals can be especially problematic when they discard or significantly relax key elements of claims (such as causation), eliminate the need for a person to have experienced an injury to sue, provide for statutory (minimum) damage awards rather than reimburse actual losses, or pay attorneys’ fees that are typically not recoverable in ordinary civil litigation. The excessive litigation that results can target small businesses or stymie innovation.

Many bills introduced in the New York legislature include private rights of action. These include bills addressing data privacy[121] and use of artificial intelligence technology.[122] Another bill would allow people who have no present injury to seek medical monitoring damages,[123] violating the core principle of tort law that uninjured people cannot bring lawsuits based on speculative concerns about the future. Other proposals authorize lawyers to bring new lawsuits against insurance companies[124] and social media companies.[125] Legislation would also allow any person to sue any “fossil fuel industry member” for damages on the basis that it contributed to climate change.[126]

Legislation would also allow any person to sue any “fossil fuel industry member” for damages on the basis that it contributed to climate change

When legislators are presented with such proposals, they should carefully consider whether the requirements or prohibitions in the bill can be more effectively, fairly, and consistently enforced through government agencies and officials and whether existing common law or statutes already provide a means for people who experience actual harm to recover. Often, however, these proposals primarily will benefit lawyers, rather than solve problems or help New Yorkers.

Hold the Line on Subjective Damages in Wrongful Death Lawsuits

Despite four vetoes, the New York legislature has persisted in advancing a bill, known as the “Grieving Families Act,” that would radically expand liability under the state’s Wrongful Death Act, including who can sue, for how much, and for how long. This legislation was reintroduced on May 4, 2026.[127]

Most concerning is the legislation’s abandonment of New York’s requirement that damages be quantifiable and pecuniary in nature. Instead, the proposal authorizes forms of noneconomic damages that have long been unavailable in New York, such as loss of companionship, as well as grief and anguish caused by the decedent’s death.

While the grief felt due to the loss of a loved one cannot be disputed, emotional pain experienced by those not directly injured is not recoverable because of the difficulties in ensuring that juries decide cases based on facts and not sympathy. Emotional losses are speculative and such damages are highly susceptible to manipulation by attorneys. New York already hosts among the most “nuclear verdicts” in the country,[128] which largely stem from noneconomic damages that are at levels that most people would not earn in several lifetimes.[129] Widely opening the door to such awards in wrongful death cases will exacerbate this problem.

Most states do not permit family members to collect damages for grief or mental anguish in wrongful death suits.[130] Many of the states that do allow broader forms of nonpecuniary damages, unlike New York, have statutory limits on damages in their wrongful death acts, generally applicable caps on noneconomic damages, or limits that apply in medical liability actions.

An actuarial analysis of the Grieving Families Act estimated that, if enacted, the legislation is likely to result in a significant increase in insurance costs for New Yorkers.[131] The research report projected that the 2021 version of the bill would have increased medical liability costs by nearly 40%, general liability costs by about 11%, and auto insurance costs by 6%.[132]

As Governor Hochul observed in her most recent veto message, “At a time when the state is facing an affordability crisis, and many struggle just to meet basic needs, genuine concerns continue to be raised that the bill may lead to increased costs, including increased insurance premiums and increased financial stress to our health care systems, including those that serve disadvantaged communities.”[133]

Do Not Facilitate More Consumer Class Actions

New York, like other states, prohibits deceptive business practices and false advertising.[134] Each year, those laws provide the foundation for numerous lawsuits. In fact, New York leads the nation in consumer class actions targeting food, beverages, supplements, and personal care products, exceeded only by California.[135]

Many of these lawsuits do not respond to real issues where consumers were actually misled into purchasing a product, but attempt to extract a nuisance settlement from businesses based on a dispute about the product’s label.[136]

Rather than address the overwhelming amount of consumer class action lawsuit abuse in New York, legislators have repeatedly introduced the so-called “Consumer and Small Business Protection Act,” which would arguably make the state’s consumer law the most expansive in the nation. Under the guise of “modernizing” that law, the bill makes five significant changes.[137]

First, the bill adds prohibitions against “unfair” and “abusive” practices to the law. These vague terms would result in even more litigation.

Second, the legislation increases statutory damages (which can be obtained without showing actual loss) from $50 to $1,000 per violation and make these damages available in class actions. This would allow lawyers to threaten businesses with astronomical liability even when there is no injury.

Third, the bill allows judges to unilaterally increase damages to any amount if the judge finds a knowing or willful violation (current law already allows judges to triple actual damages up to $1,000). Courts would be required to award attorneys’ fees to every prevailing plaintiff, rather than leave such awards to a court’s discretion when appropriate.

Fourth, the bill strips out a requirement in current law that a violation impacts consumers (which avoids misuse of the statute and its already-generous remedies in other civil litigation, like contract disputes).

Finally, the bill empowers advocacy groups to sue on behalf of the public, an approach taken in only one jurisdiction, the District of Columbia. One newspaper called the bill, “purely a giveaway to class-action lawyers.”[138]

In December 2025, Governor Hochul signed an alternative bill that includes two of the provisions above. The Fostering Affordability and Integrity through Reasonable (FAIR) Business Practices Act added “unfair” and “abusive” acts to the statute and eliminated the law’s exclusive application to consumer-oriented conduct.[139] Significantly, however, the legislation empowered the attorney general to interpret and enforce these provisions, not private lawyers. With this bill signed into law, it remains to be seen whether New Yorks’ plaintiffs’ bar will continue its advocacy for more extreme changes.

Do Not Enable Litigation Tourism

Another proposal, three times vetoed by Governor Hochul, would subject any corporation that registers to do business in New York to what is known as “general personal jurisdiction” in state courts.[140]

If enacted, attorneys could bring lawsuits against businesses stemming from conduct that is unrelated to their activities in New York in New York courts that they view as more favorable to them on the basis that they “consented” to jurisdiction by registering. This bill would have overturned a New York Court of Appeals’ decision.[141]

It threatened to make the state a magnet for litigation from across the country. Not only would this burden the state’s judiciary and taxpayers, but it could also lead to delays for New York residents with legitimate local cases. While the U.S. Supreme Court has found this approach is constitutionally permissible,[142] it is unsound public policy and not used in the vast majority of states.

As Governor Hochul observed in her December 2025 veto message, the proposal would “likely deter out-of-state companies from doing business in New York by subjecting them to lawsuits in the State regardless of any connection to New York.” She concluded that the bill would “cause undue uncertainty” for businesses and “burden the state’s court system.”[143]

Reject the Latest Plaintiffs’ Lawyer Wish List

Possibly in retaliation for Governor Hochul’s support of liability reforms, legislation was recently introduced that includes a package of changes to New York’s liability laws that can only be viewed as a personal injury lawyers’ wish list.

This bill, introduced in April 2026 as S.10035, would tip the scales toward plaintiffs and against defendants in civil litigation by:

• Significantly extending the amount of time lawyers have to file lawsuits against healthcare
• Giving plaintiffs’ lawyers a right to schedule depositions before defendants may question a plaintiff’s witnesses in personal injury cases.
• Allowing plaintiffs’ lawyers who plan to file a personal injury case to subpoena individuals or businesses for information even before they file a lawsuit in some circumstances.
• Creating new sanctions and presumptions that can be imposed on defendants if they fail to preserve evidence, known as spoilation.
• Shielding third party litigation funding arrangements from disclosure in litigation.
• Prohibiting licensed professions, such as healthcare providers, and their clients from entering agreements to arbitrate or mediate[144]

Conclusion

New York’s liability laws are badly out of step with most other states, imposing excessive costs that reverberate throughout the state’s economy and make life less affordable for families and businesses. As this paper demonstrates, outdated doctrines such as pure comparative fault, expansive joint and several liability, and absolute liability under the Scaffold Law collectively incentivize litigation rather than responsible behavior. While the state has taken modest steps toward addressing predatory lawsuit loans that harm consumers, more needs to be done to address the influx of outside money that is pouring into the civil justice system. And New York’s fixed judgment interest, which is not tied to economic reality, imposes unwarranted costs on litigants.

These policies fuel higher insurance premiums, inflate public construction costs, and invite lawsuit abuse—all while doing little to improve safety or fairness. At the same time, proposals to expand liability even further through new private rights of action, broader subjective damages in wrongful death suits, and expanded jurisdiction threaten to worsen these problems.

Governor Hochul’s proposed auto liability reforms illustrate how targeted, pragmatic changes can reduce costs while preserving core protections for injured New Yorkers. The legislature ultimately enacted only some of her relatively modest proposals, leaving more work to be done.

New York stands at the crossroads. By modernizing its liability framework and adopting targeted, commonsense reforms, the legislature can restore balance to the civil justice system without undermining the ability of truly injured individuals to recover. Conversely, continuing down a path of ever-expanding liability will deepen the state’s affordability crisis and erode confidence in its legal system. Policymakers should seize this opportunity to recalibrate New York law so that liability better aligns with responsibility, deters fraud, attracts and retains employers, and supports a more affordable and sustainable future for all New Yorkers.

[1] Cary Silverman & Christopher E. Appel, Nuclear Verdicts: An Update on Trends, Causes, and Solutions 16-17, 21-24 (U.S. Chamber Inst. for Legal Reform, May 2024).

[2] N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 8303-a.

[3] See, e.g., Grace Jiang, Staged Accidents are Big Business in NY. Hochul Wants to Crack Down, Times Union, Jan. 23, 2026.

[4] See Adam Mills Masarek & Laura Hopkins, Lex Machina Class Action Litigation Report, at 9 (LexisNexis Apr. 2026) (finding the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York hosted the most class action lawsuits between 2023 and 2025 “by a substantial margin,” and that the Eastern District of New York placed fifth, of 94 federal district courts); Perkins Coie, 2025 Year in Review: Food & Consumer Packaged Goods Litigation, at 5, 28, 33 (Mar. 2026) (finding that, in 2025, New York hosted the second most class actions against food and beverage, dietary supplements, and personal care product makers).

[5] See, e.g., Britta Lokting, Lawyer Up: Class-Action Suits Are Thriving in New York, N.Y. Times, Apr. 27, 2023; Kathianne Boniello, Ridiculous Class-Action Lawsuits are Costing You Tons of Money, N.Y. Post, Jan. 7, 2018.

[6] Cary Silverman, Class Action Chaos: The Rise of Consumer Class Action Lawsuits in New York (N.Y. Civil Justice Inst., May 2021).

[7] David McKnight & Paul Hinton, Tort Costs in America: An Empirical Analysis of Costs and Compensation of the U.S. Tort System, at 21-22 (U.S. Chamber Inst. Legal Reform, 3d ed., Nov. 2024).

[8] See Partnership for New York City, Excessive Litigation is Driving New York’s Affordability Crisis (Sept. 2025); New York Civil Justice Institute, Consumers in Crisis: How New York’s Hostile Liability Environment Inflates Insurance Costs and Fleeces Empire State Families (Apr. 2024).

[9] Shannon Martin & Alex Gailey, Hidden Costs of Car Ownership Study, Bankrate, Sept. 25, 2025.

[10] See Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York, New York Leads the Nation in Medical Liability Payouts (Aug. 2023) (presenting data compiled by Diederich Health Care, a leading nationwide insurance brokerage specializing in providing medical malpractice insurance for health care professionals and facilities).

[11] Am. Tort Reform Found., Judicial Hellholes 2025/26, at 15-23 (2025).

[12] Bill Hammond, New York’s Population is Struggling to Recover from Covid-19, Empire Center for Public Policy, Dec. 3, 2025.

[13] E.J. McMahon, New York State is Headed for a Decade of Population Decline, City Journal, Jan. 29, 2026.

[14] Johan Sheridan, High Costs and Family Drive New York Population Exodus, News10 ABC, Jan. 27, 2026 (citing U.S. Census data).

[15] Blueprint for New York – Creating a Roadmap for Change 3 (Policy Inst. of N.Y. Sept. 2025).

[16] Andria Cheng, New York at Risk for Losing More Business, JP Morgan CEO Says, CoStar News, Apr. 6, 2026; Bobby Welber, Thousands of Businesses Fleeing New York, Many Jobs at Risk, Hudson Valley Post, Jan. 19, 2026.

[17] Matthew Haag, Number of Businesses in New York City Plunged Last Spring, Report Says, N.Y. Times, Jan. 15, 2026 (discussing findings of a Economic Development Corporation report).

[18] States that apply contributory negligence include Alabama, Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, and the District of Columbia.

[19] Other states that apply pure comparative fault include Alaska, Arizona, California, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Washington.

[20] See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572h(b); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 85; N.J. Stat. § 2A:15-5.1; 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7102(a); Vt. Stat. tit. 12, § 1036.

[21] Fla. Stat. § 768.81(6) (as amended by H.B. 837 (2023)).

[22] See, e.g., Perryman Group, The Economic Benefits of Effects of Tort Reform on Property and Casualty Insurance Rates in the State of Florida (Feb. 2026); Gia Snape, Allstate CEO Points to Florida Tort Reform as Blueprint for Auto Insurance Savings, Ins. Bus., Feb. 6, 2026; Fla. Office of Ins. Regulation, Commissioner Mike Yaworsky Approves More Auto Rate Cuts for Consumers in 2026, including Military Service Members, Jan. 29, 2026; Matthew McClella, State Farm Files for 10% Auto Insurance Rate Cut in Florida, Fox13 Tampa Bay, Oct. 31, 2025; Hunter Geisel, Progressive to Refund Nearly $1 Billion to Florida Auto Insurance Policyholders, Gov. DeSantis Says, CBS News, Oct. 24, 2025.

[23] These jurisdictions include Alabama, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts (limited to proportionate share of common liability), North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Virginia. Alabama, the District of Columbia, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia retain contributory negligence as a defense to liability.

[24] Alaska Stat. § 09.17.080(d); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2506(A); Ark. Code § 16-55-201(b); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-111.5; Fla. Stat. Ann. § 768.81; Ga. Code § 51-12-33; Idaho Code § 6-803; Ind. Code § 34-20-7-1; Kan. Stat. § 60-258a(d); Ky. Rev. Stat. § 411.182(3); La. Civ. Code arts. 1804, 2323, 2324; Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 600.6304(4), 600.6312; Miss. Code Ann. § 85-5-7; N.D. Cent Code § 32‑03.2‑02 ; Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 15; Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-11-107; Utah Code §§ 78B-5-818, 78B-5-819; Vt. Stat. tit. 12, § 1036; W. Va. Code § 55-17-13c; Wyo. Stat. § 1-1-109(e). These laws contain narrow exceptions that vary from state to state. Additional states have abolished joint liability with broader exceptions. See, e.g., Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann § 41.141; N.M. Stat. § 41-3A-1; Wash. Rev. Code § 4.22.070(1)(b).

[25] 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-1117 (25% and retaining joint liability for medical expenses), Iowa (50%); Minn. Stat. § 604.02 Subd. 3 (50%); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.067 (51%); Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-703 (50%); N.H. Rev. Stat. § 507:7-e (50%); N.J. Stat. § 2A:15-5.3 (60%); Ohio Rev. Code § 2307.22 (50%); 42 Pa. Consol. Stat. § 7102 (60%); S.C. Code § 15-38-15 (50%); S.D. Codified Laws § 15-8-15.1 (50%); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.013(50%); Wis. Stat. § 895.045(1) (51%).

[26] N.J. Stat. § 2A:15-5.3; 42 Pa. Consol. Stat. § 7102.

[27] N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1601; see also Cal. Civ. Code § 1431.2 (joint liability for economic damages), Iowa Code § 668.4 (joint liability for economic damages for defendants 50% or more at fault), Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-21,185.10 (joint liability for economic damages); Ohio Rev. Code § 2307.22 (joint liability for economic damages for defendants 50% or more at fault).

[28] See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1602(6). Other exceptions include workers’ compensation, product liability, and environmental claims. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1602(4), (9), (10).

[29] See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1602(5), (7), (11).

[30] Rubinfeld v. City of New York, 170 Misc. 2d 868 (Sup. Ct. Kings Co. 1996) ((City of New York liable for full $3.5 million judgment in case in which a driver hit a pedestrian in a crosswalk on the basis that a broken walk/don’t walk sign was 20% responsible for the accident). The Appellate Division later reversed the judgment, finding the walk/don’t walk signal was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury, who was aware it was inoperational and did not rely on it to cross the street. Rubinfeld v. City of New York, 263 A.D.2d 448 (1999).

[31] Mary Grace Moran v. Leonila B. Herrera, Maria L. Garcia, and the Town of Islip; 2000 Jury Verdicts LEXIS 58418 (Sup. Ct. Suffolk Co. 2000) (Subjecting Town of Islip to full joint and several liability when jury found driver 95% at fault for an accident, but allocated 5% of responsibility to the town on the theory that it should have known of a missing stop sign). The case settled before the damages phase of the trial.

[32] Cabrera v. Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, 2018 Jury Verdicts LEXIS 106535 (Sup. Ct. Bronx Co. 2018) (transit authority liable for plaintiff’s full $5.1 million award in case involving a collision between a motorcycle and a transit bus when the jury found the motorcycle driver 70% at fault and bus driver 30% at fault); see also Cabrera v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., No. 306043/13, 2019 NY Slip Op 02991 (App. Div. Apr. 13, 2019) (affirming noneconomic damages portion of judgment, but reducing speculative $600,000 award for future medical expenses to $200,000).

[33] Rubinfeld v. City of New York, 170 Misc. 2d 868 (Sup. Ct. Kings Co. 1996) ((City of New York liable for full $3.5 million judgment in case in which a driver hit a pedestrian in a crosswalk on the basis that a broken walk/don’t walk sign was 20% responsible for the accident). The Appellate Division later reversed the judgment, finding the walk/don’t walk signal was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury, who was aware it was inoperational and did not rely on it to cross the street. Rubinfeld v. City of New York, 263 A.D.2d 448 (1999).

[34] Mary Grace Moran v. Leonila B. Herrera, Maria L. Garcia, and the Town of Islip; 2000 Jury Verdicts LEXIS 58418 (Sup. Ct. Suffolk Co. 2000) (Subjecting Town of Islip to full joint and several liability when jury found driver 95% at fault for an accident, but allocated 5% of responsibility to the town on the theory that it should have known of a missing stop sign). The case settled before the damages phase of the trial.

[35] Cabrera v. Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, 2018 Jury Verdicts LEXIS 106535 (Sup. Ct. Bronx Co. 2018) (transit authority liable for plaintiff’s full $5.1 million award in case involving a collision between a motorcycle and a transit bus when the jury found the motorcycle driver 70% at fault and bus driver 30% at fault); see also Cabrera v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., No. 306043/13, 2019 NY Slip Op 02991 (App. Div. Apr. 13, 2019) (affirming noneconomic damages portion of judgment, but reducing speculative $600,000 award for future medical expenses to $200,000).

[36] Gov. Kathy Hochul, Press Release, Money in Your Pockets: Governor Hochul Highlights Proposals to Bring Down Costs of Auto Insurance Rates and Tackle Fraudulent Claims, Feb. 11, 2026.

[37] N.Y. Labor Law § 240.

[38] See U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Occupational Safety & Health Admin., Fall Protection in Construction, OSHA 2146-05R 2015 (discussing federal regulations for fall protection in construction workplaces).

[39] See Rocovich v. Consolidated Edison Co., 583 N.E.2d 932, 934 (N.Y. 1991); Zimmer v. Chemung County Performing Arts, Inc., 482 N.E.2d 898, 899 (N.Y. 1985).

[40] See, e.g., Dahar v. Holland Ladder & Mfg. Co., 964 N.E.2d 402 (N.Y. 2012) (finding the Scaffold Law imposes liability on a property owner or contractor “who had nothing to do with the plaintiff’s accident”); Wilinski v. 334 E. 92nd Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 18 N.Y.3d 1 (2011) (adopting “same-height rule,” which permits application of Scaffold Law to injuries from falling objects at the same level as the worker); Gallagher v. New York Post, 14 N.Y.3d 83, 896 N.Y.S.2d 732 (2010) (ruling that even if workers are provided with safety devices, they must be “readily available”); Runner v. New York Stock Exch., Inc., 13 N.Y.3d 599 (2009) (applying the statute to all “gravity-related” injuries, not just falls); Zimmer v. Chemung County Performing Arts, Inc., 65 N.Y.2d 513, 493 N.Y.S.2d 102 (1985) (holding a worker’s contributory negligence cannot be considered as a defense or presented to the jury).

[41] See, e.g., Samuel v Simone Dev. Co., 13 A.D.3d 112, 113, 786 N.Y.S.2d 163 (1st Dep’t 2004); Keane v Sin Hang Lee, 188 A.D.2d 636, 591 N.Y.S.2d 521 (2d Dep’t 1992); Tate v Clancy-Cullen Storage Co., 171 A.D.2d 292, 296, 575 N.Y.S.2d 832 (1st Dep’t 1991).

[42] See Connor Harris, Deconstructing New York’s Building Costs, City J., Spring 2022 (observing that awards under the Scaffold Law far exceed workers’ compensation, which in New York caps benefits at $1,063 per week of lost wages or about $55,000 per year and awards, even for severe permanent disabilities, at most, ten years of wages).

[43] Amo v. Little Rapids Corp., 301 A.D.2d 698, 701, 754 N.Y.S.2d 685, 687 (3d Dep’t 2003).

[44] Myiow v. City of New York, 143 A.D.3d 433, 436, 39 N.Y.S.3d 1 (1st Dep’t 2016).

[45] Samuel v Simone Dev. Co., 13 A.D.3d 112, 113, 786 N.Y.S.2d 163 (1st Dep’t 2004).

[46] McCoy v. Abigail Kirsch at Tappan Hill, Inc., 99 A.D.3d 13, 951 N.Y.S.2d 32 (2d Dep’t 2012).

[47] Blake v. Neighborhood Hous. Serv. of N.Y.C., Inc., 803 N.E.2d 757, 760 (N.Y. 2003).

[48] Defendants can assert that the plaintiff was a “recalcitrant worker” as a defense, meaning that the plaintiff was provided with and instructed to use safety equipment, refused to do so, and this refusal was the sole cause of the accident. See Cahill v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Auth., 823 N.E.2d 439, 441 (N.Y. 2004).

[49] Biaca–Neto v. Boston Road II Housing Dev. Fund Corp., 144 N.E.3d 363 (N.Y. 2020).

[50] William J. Greagan, Reforming New York Labor Law Section 240(1), 78 Albany L. Rev. 167, 184 (2015).

[51] Michael R. Hattery, R. Richard Geddes & David L. Kay, The Costs of Labor Law 240 on New York’s Economy and Public Infrastructure, at 2 (Rockefeller Inst. of Gov’t 2013) (documenting increase from about 63 lawsuits filed annual between 1990-23 and 330 cases filed annual between 2010-12, a five-fold increase).

[52] Willis Towers Watson, The State of the New York Insurance Market, July 10, 2023 (finding that 8 of the top 20 personal injury settlements in 2021 involved Labor Law claims, which averaged about $4.9 million and ranged from $3 million to $11 million, and that a typical Scaffold Law claim with settle for above $1 million).

[53] WTW, The State of the New York Insurance Market: The Impact of Labor Law 240 (July 10, 2023).

[54] Id.

[55] Rev. Jacques DeGraff, Op-ed, NY’s Worst Law Helps Lawyers, Kills Construction, N.Y. Post, Feb. 9, 2014 (authored by Co-Chairman of the Alliance for Minority and Women Construction Businesses and Senior Vice President of 100 Black Men).

[56] See, e.g., Raphaelson Levine, Scaffold Injury?, https://‌www.raphaelsonlaw.com/‌services/‌scaffold-accident-lawyer; Hach & Rose, The New York Scaffold Law: What You Need to Know, https://‌www.unionlawfirm.com/new-york-construction-accident-attorney/what-is-the-new-york-scaffold-law/; Oresky & Associates, Scaffolding Accidents in Bronx, https://‌www.oreskylaw.com/‌practice/‌scaffolding-ladder-falls/.

[57] Lori Chung, ‘Suspicious’ Scaffold Law Injury Claims Alarm Industry, Advocates Say, Spectrum News NY1, Jan. 27, 2023.

[58] 7OYS Investigation Finds Dozens of Injury Lawsuits from People Living in Same Apartment Buildings, Eyewitness News ABC 7, Oct. 4, 2024.

[59] See, e.g., Greater N.Y. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Subin & Assocs., LLP, No. 1:26-cv-00470 (E.D.N.Y. filed Jan. 1, 2026); Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. v. William Schwitzer & Assocs., No. 1:25-cv-05859 (E.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 20, 2025); Roosevelt Road Re, Ltd. v. Liakas Law. P.C., No. 1:25-cv-0300 (E.D.N.Y. filed Jan. 17, 2025); Roosevelt Road Re, Ltd. v. Subin, No. 1:24-cv-05033 (E.D.N.Y. filed July 19, 2024); Roosevelt Road Re, Ltd. v. Hajjar, No. 1:24-cv-01549 (E.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 1, 2024); see also Construction Workers in NY Faking Falls on Sites Part of Larger Fraud Scheme, Lawsuit Claims, Eyewitness News ABC 7, Mar. 17, 2024.

[60] Law Firm Seeks to Walk Away from Hundreds of Lawsuits After Eyewitness News Investigation, Eyewitness News ABC 7, Sept. 6, 2024.

[61] 7 on Your Side Investigates: Fake Construction Falls in NY Contributing to Rise in Rent, Home Costs, Eyewitness News ABC 7, Nov. 7, 2023.

[62] HR&A Advisors, Inc. for the Building Trades Employers’ Association, Scaffold Law Economic Impact, at 3, 10 (Dec. 2025).

[63] Kevin O’Connor, Op-ed, New York’s Scaffold Law is a Major Barrier to Affordable Housing Production, Daily Freeman, Feb. 9, 2026; Peter G. Florey, Op-ed, New York’s Scaffold Law Drives Up Affordable Housing Costs, Rochester Bus. J., Jan. 23, 2026; Blueprint for New York – Creating a Roadmap for Change 5 (Policy Inst. of N.Y. Sept. 2025); Kate Lisa, Builders, Affordable Housing Groups Demand Repeal of N.Y. Scaffold Law This Session, Spectrum News 1, Jan. 11, 2024.

[64] The New York City School Construction Authority has found it difficult to obtain insurance coverage for its construction programs, which it attributed to the Scaffold Law. The Authority has indicated that its insurance costs are “three to four times greater than they would be for the same construction program in New Jersey.” Michael Gormley, Critics Say It’s Time NY Ends 1885 Scaffold Law, Observer-Dispatch, Sept. 1, 2013. The extra amount spent on insurance premiums due to Scaffold Law liability would be enough to build two new schools every year. Id.

[65] Matt Chaban, Builders, Insurers Stepping Up Effort to Dismantle Scaffold Law, Crain’s N.Y. Business, Mar. 17, 2013; see also Editorial, Time to Get Rid of Outdated Scaffold Law, Observer-Dispatch (Utica), Oct. 27, 2017.

[66] Kim Slowey, Contractor Groups Ask Buttigieg to Waive NY Scaffold Law for $11.6B Hudson River Tunnel Project, Construction Dive, Apr. 26, 2021; Nick Reisman, Mayors, Contractors Urge Buttigieg to Override Scaffold Law for Gateway Project, Spectrum News 1, Apr. 21, 2021.

[67] HR&A Advisors, Inc., supra, at 13-14.

[68] See Judith Nelson, Letter to the Editor, Scaffold Law Hinders Habitat for Humanity, Times Union, Oct. 27, 2017.

[69] N.Y. Building Congress, Debate Continues Over New York State Labor Law 240: The Scaffold Law (Nov. 2014).

[70] In testimony before the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, the New York State Association for Affordable Housing indicated that “insurance accounts for 10% of construction costs for affordable housing in New York City alone, depriving it of hundreds of potential affordable units every year.” NYSAFAH Testimony before the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, 2024-25 New York State Budget, Housing Priorities and Funding, Feb. 14, 2024, at 3. A RAND study estimated that changes to the Scaffold Law would likely spur 38,000 new housing units in New York City alone by bringing insurance costs closer in line with national averages. Jason M. Ward, George Zuo & Yael Katz, Supporting Housing Affordability in New York City Through Increased Housing Production: A Policy Brief, at 19 (RAND Corp. 2023).

[71] David Bull, Nationwide E&S Pulls Back from NY Construction, Ins. Insider, Apr. 20, 2018.

[72] See id. at 8.

[73] Jacob E. Arluck et al., The Effects of New York’s Labor Law 240 on Worker Safety, at 3 (Presented at the 94th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies Jan. 2015) (concluding that the Scaffold Law results in more construction-related injuries and deaths, rather than improve worker safety).

[74] A. 6007, 2025-26 Leg. Sess.

[75] See, e.g., Testimony of Eric Schuller, President, The Alliance for Responsible Consumer Legal Funding (ARC), Before the North Dakota House Industry, Business and Labor Committee, H.B. 1372, Feb. 4, 2025.

[76] John O’Brien, Litigation Funder Gave $100K to Plaintiff, Expects $2 Million Back; Client Allegedly Not Paying Up, Legal Newsline, June 30, 2020; Shawn Cohen et al., Inside the Cottage Industry that’s Fleecing NYC Taxpayers, N.Y. Post, Jan. 2, 2018.

[77] Ronen Avraham & Abraham Wickelgren, Third-Party Litigation Funding—A Signaling Model, 63 DePaul L. Rev. 233, 233 n.3 (2014) (discussing Francis v. Mirman, Markovits & Landau PC, N.Y. Sup. Ct. Kings Cnty., No. 29993/10). Mr. Francis later unsuccessfully sued his attorneys for malpractice for not informing him of the risk posed by these loans. See Joan C. Rogers, Law Firm Wins Dismissal of Suit by Client Whose Litigation Loans Ate Up Settlement, Bloomberg Law, Jan. 30, 2013.

[78] Complaint, Consumer Protection Financial Protection Bureau and People of the State of New York v. RD Legal Funding, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-00890 (S.D.N.Y. filed Feb. 7, 2022); see also Hannah Albarazi, CFPB And NY Settle Suit Alleging RD Legal 9/11 Fund Scam, Law360, Nov. 23, 2022.

[79] See Office of the New York State Attorney General, Payday Loans, https://ag.ny.gov/publications/payday-loans.In general, loans that charge interest in excess of 16% are usurious under New York civil law. N.Y. Banking Law § 14-a(1); N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-501. Those that charge interest in excess of 25% per year are criminally usurious. N.Y. Penal Law § 190.40. Subject to certain exceptions, usurious contracts are void and unenforceable. N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 5-511. Companies that provide lawsuit loans to consumers, however, circumvent these safeguards and charge substantially higher rates by claiming they are not providing “loans,” but “nonrecourse funding.”

[80] See, e.g., Brad Hamilton & Georgia Worrell, MS-13, Russian Mobsters Use Migrants in Elaborate Injury Scam — Even Getting Spinal Surgery to Pull It Off: Sources, N.Y. Post, June 16, 2024; U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of New York, Press Release, New York Litigation Funder Convicted in Trip-and-Fall Fraud Scheme Sentenced to 36 Months in Prison, Apr. 13, 2023; Alison Frankel, N.Y. Feds Allege Litigation Funder Horror Story, Reuters, Oct. 21, 2021; Larry Neumeister, Feds Say $31M Manhattan Trip-and-Fall Scam Used Homeless People as Pawns, Ins. J., Aug. 30, 2021; Barbara Grzincic, Two N.Y. Lawyers Accused in $31 Mln Insurance Scam, Reuters, Aug. 25, 2021; Matthew Goldstein & Jessica Silver-Greenberg, How Profiteers Lure Women Into Often-Unneeded Surgery, N.Y. Times, Apr. 14, 2018.

[81] A.9442, 2025-26 Leg. Sess.; A.804-C, 2025-26 Leg. Sess.

[82] See Maurice MacSweeney, Op-ed, Litigation Finance Spurs Innovation by Moving Past Single Cases, Bloomberg L., Mar. 16, 2023.

[83] Major dedicated commercial lenders report that their average investment is $4.5 million in a single matter, $19.6 million in a portfolio of litigation, and $8.1 million overall. The Westfleet Insider, 2025 Litigation Finance Market Report at 5 (2026).

[84] Commercial litigation funding “more than doubled” from 2017 to 2021. U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., GAO-23-105210, Third-Party Litigation Financing: Market Characteristics, Data, and Trends, at 11 (Dec. 2022). According to Westfleet Advisors, major commercial litigation funders had $16.1 billion in assets under management as of mid-2024,  an increase from less than $10 billion five years earlier. The Westfleet Insider, 2024 Litigation Finance Market Report 3-4 (2025). These figures substantially understate the size of the industry because they exclude amounts flowing into mass tort and consumer litigation or funding sourced by those other than dedicated commercial litigation funders.

[85] See Lesley Stahl, Litigation Funding: A Multibillion-Dollar Industry for Investments in Lawsuits with Little Oversight, CBS News, 60 Minutes, July 23, 2023 (quoting Christopher Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital, “Clients are free to run their litigations as they see fit. They’re free to work with their lawyers as they see fit. And we don’t interfere with that relationship.”).

[86] See Lawyers for Civil Justice, Rules Suggestion to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules and its TPLF Subcommittee, Sept. 3, 2025 (providing examples of direct and indirect control mechanisms in litigation funding agreements); see also Emily Siegel, Sysco Says $140 Million Litigation Funder Blocking Lawyer Change, Bloomberg L., Mar. 21, 2023, Hannah Albarazi, When A Litigation Funder is Accused of Taking Over the Case, Law360, Mar. 15, 2023; Mike Scarcella, Litigation Funder Burford Sues Sysco Over $140 Mln Antitrust Investment, Reuters, Mar. 13, 2023.

[87] Jacob Gershman, Lawsuit Funding, Long Hidden in the Shadows, Faces Calls for More Sunlight, Wall St. J., Mar. 21, 2018 (quoting Allison Chock, chief investment officer for IMF Bentham’s U.S. division, now Omni Bridgeway).

[88] Id. (interview with Burford CEO Christopher Bogart).

[89] See Ins. Information Inst., What is Third-party Litigation Funding and How Does it Affect Insurance Pricing and Affordability?, at 4-5 (2022).

[90] Emily R. Siegel, China Firm Funds US Suits Amid Push to Disclose Foreign Ties, Bloomberg L., Nov. 6, 2023.

[91] Emily R. Siegel & John Holland, Putin’s Billionaires Dodge Sanctions by Financing Lawsuits, Bloomberg L., Mar. 28, 2024.

[92] See Joseph Matal, Op-ed, Patent Lawsuits Are a National-Security Threat, Wall St. J., Mar. 20, 2024 (authored by a former acting director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office); Emily R. Siegel, China Firm Funds US Suits Amid Push to Disclose Foreign Ties, Bloomberg Law, Nov. 6, 2023; Michael E. Leiter et al., A New Threat: The National Security Risk of Third Party Litigation Funding (U.S. Chamber Inst. for Legal Reform, Nov. 2022).

[93] See, e.g., Worldview Entertainment Holdings Inc. v. Woodrow, No. 15841-15841A, 2022 WL 1249050 (N.Y. App. Div., 1st Dep’t, Apr. 28, 2022); Garcia v. City of New York, 2022 WL 4790488, at *2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Oct. 3, 2022); Fernandez v. Ortiz, 2022 WL 1262362, at *2 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Bronx Cty. Mar. 10, 2022); Rodriquez v. Rosen & Gordon, 2022 WL 635416, at *3 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. Mar. 4, 2022). But see Lituma v. Liberty Coca-Cola Beverages LLC, 2025 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6513, 2025 NY Slip Op 06389 (1st Dep’t 2025) (affirming decision to order further discovery into plaintiffs’ litigation funding in a personal injury action where defendants alleged an affirmative defense and counterclaim alleging plaintiff intentionally staged their rear-end vehicle collision, finding the funding arrangement could reveal a financial motive for fabricating the incident).

[94] Standing Order Regarding Third-Party Litigation Funding Arrangements (D. Del. Apr. 18, 2022); Civ. L.R. 7.1.1 (D. N.J. June 21, 2021).

[95] See, e.g., Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-16-126(7) (enacted 2025); Ga. Code Ann. § 9-11-26(b)(2.1)(A) (enacted 2025); Ind. Code § 24-12-11 (enacted 2024); Ind. Code § 24-12-4-2 (enacted 2023); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-226(b) (enacted 2025); La. Rev. Stat. § 9:3580.12(B) (enacted 2024); Mont. Code Ann. § 31-4-108 (enacted 2023, amended 2025); 12 Okla. Stat. § 3226(B)(1)(c) (enacted 2025); S.B. 2101 / H.B. 2198 (to be added as Tenn. Code Ann. 47-16-106(d)) (passed Apr. 20, 2026, awaiting signature); W. Va. Code Ann. § 46A-6N-6 (enacted 2019; amended 2024); Wis. Code § 804.01(2)(bg) (enacted 2018).

[96] N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5004. The judgment interest statutes apply simple interest, rather than compound interest, to claims. Spodek v. Park Property Dev. Assoc., 733 N.Y.S.2d 674 (2001).

[97] See Cam MacDonald, Past Due: It’s Time to Float New York’s Statutory Interest Rates, Empire Center, Mar. 22, 2024.

[98] Report of the Advisory Committee on Civil Practice to the Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts of the State of New York, at 141 (Jan. 2014).

[99] Hector D. LaSalle, The Appellate Division, Second Department: A Review of Its Accomplishments in 2025, N.Y.L.J., Jan. 30, 2026.

[100]Municipalities are subject to interest rates on judgments that “shall not exceed 9%” N.Y. Gen. Mun. L. § 3-a; see also N.Y. Pub. Hous. L. § 157(5) (setting judgment interest rate not to exceed nine percent for claims against a public housing authority); N.Y. St. Fin. L. § 16 (same for claims against the state); Ch. 585 of the Laws of 1939 (same for certain public corporations).

[101] See Testimony of the New York State Conference of Mayors, Peter A. Baynes, Executive Director, Before the Joint Fiscal Committees’ Hearing on the Executive Budget, at 7 (Jan. 30, 2017).

[102] N.J. Ct. R. 4:42-11 (setting the pre- and post-judgment interest rate as annual post-judgment interest rate as equal to the average rate of return for the State of New Jersey Cash Management Fund for the preceding fiscal year, rounded off to the nearest whole or one-half percent, but not less than 0.25%); see also N.J. Courts, Post-Judgment and Pre-Judgment Interest Rates, https://‌www.njcourts.gov/‌sites/‌default/‌files/‌courts/‌civil/‌postprejudgmentrates.pdf (rev. Jan. 23, 2026) (providing historic annual judgment interest rates).

[103] 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8101; 41 Pa. Stat. § 202; Pa. R. Civ. P. 238.

[104] See, e.g., S.B. 544 (2019) (Ark. 2019) (amending Ark. Code § 16-65-114 to replace a 12% fixed judgment interest rate in favor of the Federal Reserve primary credit rate plus 2%); S.B. 75 (Kan. 2023) (amending Kan. Stat. Ann. § 16-201 to replace a 10% fixed post-judgment interest rate with the federal discount rate plus 2%); H.B. 223 (Ky. 2017) (amending Ky. Rev. Stat. § 360.040 to reduce a 12% fixed rate to 6%); S.B. 293 (Mont. 2017) (amending Mont. Code Ann. §§ 25-9-205, 27-1-210 to replace a 10% fixed rate with the prime rate plus 3%; H.B. 2678 (W. Va. 2017) (amending W. Va. Code Ann. § 56-6-31 to lower the pre-judgment interest rate for special or liquidated damages and post-judgment interest rate from no lower than 7% or higher than 11% to 2% above the Fifth Federal Reserve District secondary discount rate, provided the rate does not fall below 4% or exceed 9%).

[105] Other outlier states include California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming.

[106] See, e.g., N.J. Ct. R. 4:42-11 (later of the date of institution of the action or a date six months after the date the cause of action arises); Pa. R. Civ. P. 238(a)(2) (one year after date original process was first served, excluding the period in which defendant made a compliant written settlement offer or in which the plaintiff caused delay of the trial).

[107] While recent legislation reduced the judgment interest rate to 2% for certain consumer debt cases,  but otherwise left the standard 9% rate unchanged. S.5724A, 2021-22 Leg. Sess. (enacted Dec. 31, 2021) (amending N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5004).

[108] Gov. Kathy Hochul, Governor Hochul Rallies with Leaders and Advocates to Highlight Auto Insurance Reform Proposals as Support Grows, Mar. 18, 2026.

[109] See id.

[110] See id.

[111] See A. 10005-C / S. 9005-C, 2025-26 Leg. Sess. (signed May 27, 2026).

[112] Id., Part F, § 1 (amending N.Y Penal Law § 176.05).

[113] Gov. Kathy Hochul, Press Release, Governor Hochul Secures Reforms to Lower Auto Insurance Premiums for New Yorkers, May 27, 2026.

[114] See FY 2027 New York State Executive Budget, Transportation, Economic Development and Environmental Conservations, Article VII Legislation, Part FF, at 158 (proposing amendment to Ins. Law 5105(a)).

[115] A. 3800 / S. 5231, 2025-26 Leg. Sess.

[116] The full current definition of “serious injury” is “a personal injury which results in death; dismemberment; significant disfigurement; a fracture; loss of a fetus; permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system; permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member; significant limitation of use of a body function or system; or a medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature which prevents the injured person from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute such person’s usual and customary daily activities for not less than ninety days during the one hundred eighty days immediately following the occurrence of the injury or impairment.” Ins. Law 5102(d).

[117] Brian W. Webb & Dan D. Kohane, Governor’s Tort Proposals Present Legitimate Solutions, N.Y.L.J., Feb. 27, 2026.

[118] FY 2027 New York State Executive Budget, Transportation, Economic Development and Environmental Conservations, Article VII Legislation, Part EE, at 156.

[119] New Jersey similarly narrowed its definition of “serious injury” for claims that can proceed outside that state’s the PIP system in 1998. See N.J. Stat. Ann. § 39:6A-8(a).

[120] A. 10008-C, Part EE, § 2, 2025-26 Leg. Sess. (amending N.Y. Ins. Law § 5104).

[121] A.4947, 2025-26 Leg. Sess.

[122] S.1169A / A.8884, 2025-26 Leg. Sess.

[123] S.7474, 2025-26 Leg. Sess.

[124] S.166A / A.6010, 2025-26 Leg. Sess.

[125] S.463 / A.1071, 2025-26 Leg. Sess.

[126] S.4799 / A.72, 2025-26 Leg. Sess.

[127] S.10171, 2025-26 Leg. Sess.

[128] Cary Silverman & Christopher E. Appel, Nuclear Verdicts: An Update on Trends, Causes, and Solutions, at 16-17, 21-24 (U.S. Chamber Inst. for Legal Reform 2024).

[129] See Timothy R. Capowski & Jonathan P. Shaub, Improper Summation Anchoring Is Turning the New York Court System on Its Head and Contributing to the Demise of New York State, N.Y.L.J., Apr. 28, 2020; see also Shaub Ahmuty Citrin & Spratt, Top NYS Court Pain & Suffering Personal Injury Verdicts & Improper Anchoring (2010-2021 Year End).

[130] The American Law Institute’s (ALI) tentatively approved new Restatement of the Law Third Torts: Remedies recognizes that “[m]ost states compensate loss of society, but some do not; most states do not compensate grief or emotional distress. . . .” See Restatement of the Law Third Torts: Remedies § 23, comment b, at 363-64 (Tentative Draft No. 2, Apr. 2023).

[131] Derek Jones, Jason Kurtz & Dionne Schaaffe, Review of New York Bill S74-A/ A.6770: Proposed Expansion of New York’s Wrongful Death Act, at 2 (Milliman, May 27, 2021) (prepared for the New York Civil Justice Institute).

[132] Id. at 4.

[133] Veto #87, S. 4223 (Dec. 5, 2025).

[134] N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 349, 350.

[135] See Perkins Coie, 2025 Year in Review: Food & Consumer Packaged Goods Litigation, at 5, 28, 33 (Mar. 2026).

[136] See Cary Silverman, Class Action Chaos: The Rise of Consumer Class Action Lawsuits in New York, at 10 (N.Y. Civil Justice Inst. 2021); see also Britta Lokting, Lawyer Up: Class Action Suits are Thriving in New York, N.Y. Times, Apr. 27, 2023.

[137] S.105 / A.5287, 2025-26 Leg. Sess.

[138] Editorial, Stop the ‘Consumer and Small Business Protection’ Racket, N.Y. Post, Mar. 29, 2024.

[139] Fostering Affordability and Integrity through Reasonable (FAIR) Business Practices Act, S.8416, 2025-26 Leg. Sess. (enacted Dec. 19, 2025).

[140] A.8303, 2025-26 Leg. Sess. (vetoed Dec. 19, 2025); A. 7476, 2023-24, Leg. Sess. (vetoed Dec. 22, 2023); A.7769, 2021-22 Leg. Sess. (vetoed Dec. 31, 2021).

[141] Aybar v. Aybar, 37 N.Y.3d 274, 280, 282 (2021).

[142] Mallory v. Norfolk S. Ry., 600 U.S. 122 (2023).

[143] Veto #134, A.8303 (Dec. 19, 2025).

[144] S.10035, 2025-26 Leg. Sess.