Provides that limited liability for persons held jointly liable shall not apply to parties held liable for failing to provide reasonable security or failing to provide security required by federal, state or local law, rules or regulations.
Summary
This bill amends New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules to create an exception to the state’s “limited liability” rule for jointly liable parties. Under current law, a defendant found jointly liable for damages may in some cases have liability limited based on their share of fault. The bill would make that limitation inapplicable to any person who owns, manages, or controls property and is held liable for failing to provide security required by law, rule, or regulation.
In practical terms, the measure targets property owners and managers in cases involving inadequate security, including situations where a legal duty to provide security exists under federal, state, or local requirements. It would apply immediately to causes of action commenced or pending on or after the effective date, which means it could affect both new lawsuits and some cases already underway.
Impact
The bill would amend CPLR Section 1602 by adding a new subdivision that excludes certain property owners, managers, and controllers from the protections of New York’s limited liability framework when they are liable for failing to provide required security. This would likely increase potential exposure for those parties in premises liability and negligent security litigation, allowing plaintiffs to seek broader recovery against them in qualifying cases. The change would affect how damages are allocated among jointly liable defendants in cases involving security obligations imposed by law or regulation.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available record. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears aimed at strengthening accountability for property-related security failures, which suggests a consumer- and victim-protection orientation. The absence of recorded opposition or amendments makes the overall sentiment difficult to gauge beyond the bill’s apparent policy purpose.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the scope of the exception to limited liability: it applies to any person who owns, manages, or controls property and is liable for failing to provide security required by law, rule, or regulation. Property owners, landlords, managers, and business interests may view this as expanding litigation exposure and undermining the protections of comparative fault or joint-liability limits. Supporters would likely argue that parties responsible for security should not benefit from liability caps when they fail to meet legally mandated security obligations.
Same As
Provides that limited liability for persons held jointly liable shall not apply to parties held liable for failing to provide reasonable security or failing to provide security required by federal, state or local law, rules or regulations.
Provides that limited liability for persons held jointly liable shall not apply to parties held liable for failing to provide reasonable security or failing to provide security required by federal, state or local law, rules or regulations.
Provides that limited liability for persons held jointly liable shall not apply to parties held liable for failing to provide reasonable security or failing to provide security required by federal, state or local law, rules or regulations.
Provides that limited liability for persons held jointly liable shall not apply to parties held liable for failing to provide reasonable security or failing to provide security required by federal, state or local law, rules or regulations.