New York has long followed a comparative negligence rule that allowed an injured person to recover compensation even if they were partly at fault for an accident. Their recovery would simply be reduced by their percentage of responsibility. That rule still applies in many New York personal injury cases outside the new Article 51 exception.
However, a 2026 update to CPLR § 1411 creates an important exception for certain motor vehicle personal injury cases covered by New York’s No-Fault insurance law. For injured people involved in many types of accidents including car accidents, truck crashes, pedestrian collisions and other covered motor vehicle injury claims, this change may significantly affect whether tort damages are recoverable in a personal injury lawsuit. Motorcycle accident claims require separate analysis because New York’s No-Fault law treats motorcycles differently.
The new rule does not apply to every personal injury case. It is limited to personal injury actions subject to Article 51 of the New York Insurance Law, which is New York’s motor vehicle No-Fault framework.
What Changed in CPLR § 1411?
The 2026 update added a narrower exception under CPLR § 1411(b). That subsection applies to an “action to recover damages for personal injury subject to article fifty-one of the insurance law.”
Article 51 of the New York Insurance Law is the state’s Comprehensive Motor Vehicle Insurance Reparations Act — commonly known as the No-Fault law.
In practical terms, The new exception applies to personal injury actions that are subject to Article 51, including many lawsuits arising from the use or operation of covered motor vehicles in New York.
Under the new rule, an injured claimant may be barred from recovery if that claimant’s fault is greater than:
- The fault of the person they sued; or
- The combined fault of all persons from whom they seek recovery.
That is a major shift for covered motor vehicle injury cases.
When Did the New CPLR § 1411(b) Rule Take Effect?
CPLR § 1411(b) was enacted as part of Chapter 58 of the 2026 budget legislation, through Part EE. The Senate bill page identifies the bill as signed as Chapter 58 on May 26, 2026. The Part EE amendment states that it takes effect immediately and applies to actions and proceedings commenced on or after that date.
If the lawsuit or proceeding was commenced before May 26, 2026, the prior comparative negligence rule may apply. If the lawsuit or proceeding was commenced on or after May 26, 2026, the new CPLR § 1411(b) rule may apply. The key date is when the action or proceeding was commenced, not necessarily the date of the accident.
What Is Comparative Negligence in New York?
Comparative negligence is the rule courts use when more than one person shares responsibility for an accident.
Simply, it asks: How much fault belongs to each person involved?
Before the 2026 update, New York’s general rule under CPLR § 1411 was straightforward. If you were partly responsible for your injury, your compensation could be reduced by your percentage of fault, but you were not automatically barred from recovery.
For example:
- If your total damages were $100,000
- And you were found 30% at fault
- Your recovery could be reduced by 30%
- You could still recover $70,000
That general rule is often called pure comparative negligence because a plaintiff’s percentage of fault reduces damages but does not fully block the claim.
Under CPLR § 1411(a), that rule still applies to many New York injury cases, the major change is what happens in certain motor vehicle personal injury cases.
What Does the New Rule Mean for New York Motor Vehicle Accident Claims?
For motor vehicle personal injury cases subject to Article 51, New York now applies a more restrictive fault rule to certain motor vehicle personal injury cases than it applies to many other personal injury claims.
If you are injured in a New York car accident and you are found to be more at fault than the defendant, depending on the facts, the parties involved, and how fault is allocated, you may be barred from recovering damages from that defendant.
If multiple defendants are involved, your fault may be compared against their combined fault. If your share of fault is greater than the combined fault of the people you sued, the claim may be barred.
Here is the practical difference: This chart is general. Whether the new rule applies depends on the parties, claims, insurance status, vehicle type, and whether the action is subject to Article 51.
In multi-defendant cases, the result depends on how fault is allocated among the claimant and the people from whom the claimant seeks recovery.
| Scenario | Possible Result Under New Motor Vehicle Rule |
| You are 20% at fault and the defendant is 80% at fault | Your damages may be reduced by 20%, but the claim is not barred. |
| You are 50% at fault and the defendant is 50% at fault | Your damages may be reduced by 50%, but the claim may still proceed. |
| You are 51% at fault and the defendant is 49% at fault | You will be barred from recovery. |
| You are 40% at fault and two defendants are collectively 60% at fault | Your damages may be reduced by 40%, but the claim may still proceed. |
| You are 55% at fault and all defendants from whom you seek recovery are collectively 45% at fault | You will be barred from recovery if the action is subject to Article 51, because your fault is greater than the combined fault of the people you sued. |
Which Personal Injury Cases Are Affected by New York’s New Comparative Fault Rule?
| Type of Accident | Affected? | Additional Info |
| Car Accidents | Yes | |
| Distracted Driving Accidents | Yes | |
| Truck Accidents | Yes | |
| Rideshare Accidents | Yes | Uber, Lyft, and other rideshare accident cases usually involve covered motor vehicles, so they are likely affected. |
| Bus Accidents | Yes | |
| Pedestrian Accidents | Usually yes | Usually yes. Pedestrian claims involving motorcycles, unidentified vehicles, uninsured vehicles, or MVAIC may require separate review. |
| Hit-and-Run Accidents | Usually yes | A hit-and-run case is usually affected if it is a motor vehicle personal injury claim covered by Article 51. However, cases involving MVAIC, uninsured motorist coverage, underinsured motorist coverage, or an unidentified driver may require separate analysis. |
| Drunk Driving Accidents | Yes | Drunk driving accident cases are affected when they involve a covered motor vehicle crash. These cases may also involve separate rules that apply to certain impaired drivers. |
| Motorcycle Accidents | Usually no for injured riders or passengers | New York’s Article 51 definition of “motor vehicle” excludes motorcycles, which means injured motorcycle operators and passengers are generally treated differently from people injured in car, truck, or bus accidents. However, a case involving a pedestrian struck by a motorcycle, or another covered motor vehicle issue, may require closer review. |
| Bicycle Accidents | Depends | A bicycle claim may be affected when the bicyclist is injured through the use or operation of a covered motor vehicle. Bicycle-only, bike-vs-bike, premises, or product cases require separate analysis. |
| E-bikes | Depends | E-bike accident claims may be affected when the injury arises from the use or operation of a covered motor vehicle, such as a car, truck, bus, or rideshare vehicle striking an e-bike rider. However, e-bike-only, e-bike-vs-e-bike, pedestrian-vs-e-bike, product defect, or premises-type claims usually require separate analysis because compliant e-bikes are generally not treated the same as covered Article 51 motor vehicles. |
| Motorized Scooters | Depends | Motorized scooter accident claims may be affected when a covered motor vehicle is involved, such as a car or truck hitting a scooter rider. Scooter-only, scooter-vs-scooter, pedestrian-vs-scooter, or claims involving unregistered, illegal, high-speed, moped-like devices may require separate review because coverage and fault rules can depend on how the device is classified. |
Why Motor Vehicle Cases Are Treated Differently Under the Update
New York motor vehicle injury claims already operate under a separate legal framework because of the state’s No-Fault law.
Under Article 51, people injured in motor vehicle accidents may receive No-Fault benefits for basic economic loss, regardless of fault, subject to the rules and limits of the statute and applicable insurance coverage.
But when an injured person brings a personal injury lawsuit arising from the use or operation of a motor vehicle, Article 51 affects when and how that lawsuit may proceed. For example, New York’s No-Fault law limits certain lawsuits unless the injured person meets the serious injury threshold or seeks damages that fall outside the No-Fault system.
The CPLR § 1411(b) update adds another layer: once a motor vehicle personal injury lawsuit is subject to Article 51, fault allocation may determine whether damages are recoverable in a lawsuit.
Does the New Rule Affect No-Fault Benefits?
The CPLR § 1411(b) update concerns actions to recover damages for personal injury subject to Article 51. No-Fault benefits are a separate part of New York’s motor vehicle insurance system.
No-Fault benefits generally cover certain basic economic losses after a motor vehicle accident, regardless of who caused the crash, subject to the policy, deadlines, and statutory requirements.
The new comparative negligence exception is most important when an injured person brings a personal injury lawsuit for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. If you were injured in a crash, you should not assume that the same rule applies to every part of your claim. No-Fault benefits, bodily injury claims, serious injury threshold issues, and comparative fault issues each require separate analysis.
How The Rothenberg Law Firm Helps After a New York Motor Vehicle Accident
The Rothenberg Law Firm represents injured people and families after serious motor vehicle accidents in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. For more than 55 years, the firm has handled personal injury claims involving car accidents, truck crashes, motorcycle accidents, pedestrian injuries, bicycle collisions, rideshare accidents, and wrongful death.
The new CPLR § 1411(b) rule makes preparation even more important in New York motor vehicle cases. Our legal team focuses on building the claim from the ground up by preserving evidence, investigating fault, documenting injuries, identifying all responsible parties, and preparing each case with the seriousness it deserves.
When fault is disputed, the details matter. A few percentage points may now change the outcome of a covered motor vehicle injury claim. The right legal response starts with understanding what happened, what evidence exists, and how New York law applies to your case.
Contact The Rothenberg Law Firm for a free consultation to discuss your case and understand your options. We handle motor vehicle accident cases on a contingency fee basis, which means you pay no attorney fees unless we recover compensation for you.