Court Grants Leave To Implead Under Pre-2026 Version Of CPLR 1007 Because Action Was Commenced Before Amendment Was Enacted

Posted: June 22, 2026 / Written by: Samuel L. Butt, Ian Weiss, Channing J. Turner, Thomas A. Kissane / Categories Court Rules/Procedures, Commercial

Court Grants Leave To Implead Under Pre-2026 Version Of CPLR 1007 Because Action Was Commenced Before Amendment Was Enacted

On June 5, 2026, in LAM Group v. Anthony T. Rinaldi LLC, Index No. 650465/2022, Justice Robert R. Reed of the New York County Commercial Division granted a defendant leave to file a third-party complaint, holding that the 2026 amendment to CPLR 1007 did not govern the application.

As amended in 2026, CPLR 1007(b) requires court leave to file a third-party summons and complaint more than ninety days after serving an answer. The Court held that because the summons and complaint in this action were filed on January 31, 2022—before the enactment of the 2026 amendments—the application would be evaluated under the prior version of the statute, which imposed no leave requirement and no specific time limit. The Court explained:

CPLR 1007 subsection [b] provides that “a defendant shall not file a third-party summons and complaint more than ninety days after serving its answer without an order of the court.” The original bill was signed by Governor Hochul on February 13, 2026, and was made effective on April 18, 2026. The chapter amendments state that “this act shall take effect on the one hundred twentieth day after it shall have become a law and shall apply to all cases commenced on or after such date[.]” The summons and complaint were filed on January 31, 2022, before the enactment of the CPLR 1007 amendments. Therefore, Rinaldi's application for leave to file a third-party complaint will not be evaluated under this provision. Before its 2026 amendment, CPLR 1007 permitted the filing of a third party action so long as the liability to be imposed upon a third party defendant arose from or was conditioned upon the liability asserted against a third party plaintiff in the main action[.] In its prior incarnation, CPLR 1007 did not require court leave to file a third party complaint and provided no specific time limit for the initiation of a third-party claim.

(Emphasis added.)

Applying the pre-amendment standard, the Court found arguable grounds that the defendant's liability arose from or was conditioned upon the third party's work, and that, absent substantial prejudice, delay in impleading is not a bar where discovery remains open and no trial is imminent. The decision confirms that, for impleader purposes, the date an action was commenced, not the date of the third-party application, determines whether the new leave requirement applies.

The attorneys at Schlam Stone & Dolan LLP have extensive experience litigating procedural and impleader questions in complex commercial disputes in the Commercial Division. Contact the Commercial Division Blog Committee at commercialdivisionblog@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions concerning such issues.