New York Assembly Bill A11239

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/1/26
• Refer: 5/1/26

Caption

Relates to permitting a plaintiff to recover directly against a third party defendant found to be liable in certain actions

Summary

A11239 would add a new section to New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules allowing a plaintiff who has obtained an unsatisfied judgment against a defendant to reach certain recovery rights that the defendant has against a co-defendant or third-party defendant. If the defendant has already won a judgment for contribution or contractual/common-law indemnification against another party, the plaintiff could collect the unpaid portion of the plaintiff’s judgment directly from that recovery, up to the amount awarded on the contribution or indemnification claim. The bill also covers situations where the defendant has a contribution or indemnification claim that has not yet been reduced to judgment. In that case, the plaintiff could attach or take an assignment of that claim and prosecute it in the plaintiff’s own name or in the defendant’s name, again limited to the amount that would have been available to the defendant. The bill applies only after the plaintiff’s judgment has remained unsatisfied for 30 days after service on the defendant-judgment debtor, and it takes effect immediately for judgments entered on or after that date.

Impact

The bill would expand post-judgment collection remedies under New York law by creating a new mechanism for judgment creditors to step into or attach a debtor’s contribution and indemnification rights. It would affect civil litigation practice, especially cases involving multiple defendants, insurers, contractors, and other parties where indemnity or contribution claims are common. The measure expressly preserves existing limits, including the workers’ compensation bar and the rule preventing direct recovery against a third party when the underlying third-party claim would be barred by section 11 of the Workers’ Compensation Law or when the third party was the plaintiff’s employer at the time of the injury.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the limited available legislative history, the measure appears to be a procedural and creditor-enforcement reform rather than a controversial policy change. There are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided material, so no formal opposition or support is documented. The bill’s structure suggests an effort to improve judgment collection and prevent defendants from avoiding payment when they have viable indemnity or contribution recoveries from others.

Contention

The main potential point of contention is whether allowing a plaintiff to pursue a defendant’s contribution or indemnification rights unfairly expands liability exposure for co-defendants and third-party defendants, especially in complex tort or construction cases. Another likely issue is the interaction with workers’ compensation exclusivity and employer immunity, which the bill preserves by excluding claims barred under Workers’ Compensation Law section 11 and claims against the plaintiff’s employer. Because no committee debate or vote record is provided, the specific positions of supporters and opponents are not documented.