(a) Plaintiffs. Persons who assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, may join in one action as plaintiffs if any common question of law or fact would arise.
§ 1002.Permissive joinder of parties
Article 10. Parties Generally · Last amended 1963 · Last verified July 21, 2026
In one sentenceCPLR 1002 lets multiple plaintiffs join in one lawsuit, or multiple defendants be joined in one lawsuit, whenever their claims arise from the same transaction or occurrence and share a common question of law or fact.
Full Text of CPLR 1002
(b) Defendants. Persons against whom there is asserted any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative, arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, may be joined in one action as defendants if any common question of law or fact would arise.
(c) Separate relief; separate trials. It shall not be necessary that each plaintiff be interested in obtaining, or each defendant be interested in defending against, all the relief demanded or as to every claim included in an action; but the court may make such orders as will prevent a party from being embarrassed, delayed, or put to expense by the inclusion of a party against whom he asserts no claim and, who asserts no claim against him, and may order separate trials or make other orders to prevent prejudice.
Plain-English Summary
CPLR 1002 covers joinder that the rules allow but don't require. Subdivision (a) lets several people who each have a right to relief -- jointly, severally, or as alternatives to one another -- sue together as plaintiffs, as long as their claims grow out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of occurrences, and share at least one common question of law or fact. Subdivision (b) mirrors that rule for defendants: a plaintiff can name multiple defendants in one action under the same conditions.
Subdivision (c) removes a possible objection to that kind of joinder. No plaintiff has to be interested in every form of relief the complaint seeks, and no defendant has to face every claim in it. A defendant doesn't need a stake in every dispute to end up named in the caption. But the rule gives the court a check on abuse: it can order separate trials, or otherwise arrange the case, if joining an uninterested party would embarrass, delay, or add expense for anyone.
The point is efficiency. Rather than filing five lawsuits over one car accident that injured five passengers, the rule lets one case handle all five claims when they share common ground, saving the parties and the court from litigating the same facts more than once.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can multiple plaintiffs sue together in one New York lawsuit?
Yes. Under CPLR 1002(a), plaintiffs may join in a single action when their claims arise from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of occurrences and share a common question of law or fact.
Can a plaintiff sue multiple defendants in one action under CPLR 1002?
Yes, CPLR 1002(b) allows joinder of multiple defendants on the same terms as plaintiff joinder, so long as a common question of law or fact links the claims against them.
Does every plaintiff have to want the same relief under CPLR 1002?
No. CPLR 1002(c) makes clear that plaintiffs and defendants joined in one action don't each have to be interested in every claim or every form of relief sought in the case.
Can a court order separate trials for joined parties in New York?
Yes. CPLR 1002(c) lets the court order separate trials, or otherwise manage the case, if joining a party would cause undue delay, expense, or unfair embarrassment to anyone involved.
What is the difference between CPLR 1001 and CPLR 1002?
CPLR 1001 addresses parties who must be joined for the case to proceed properly; CPLR 1002 addresses parties who may be joined by choice when their claims share common facts or law.
Advisory Committee Notes
The original provisions of the CPA on permissive joinder, though somewhat complicated, were liberal on the whole. Thus, 193 plaintiffs were permitted to join their separate claims for damages arising out of a false prospectus inducing sales of stock. Akely v Kinnicutt, 238 NY 466, 144 NE 682 (1924). However, the provisions for joinder of defendants in the alternative were not liberal, with the result that joinder of the person causing plaintiff’s injury and the physician who attended him was disallowed in Ader v Blau, 241 NY 7, 148 NE 771 (1925). An amendment to CPA § 258 relative to joinder of causes of action remedied this lamented ruling. Great Northern Telegraph Co. v Yokohama Specie Bank, 297 NY 135, 76 NE2d 117 (1947). Under this decision and the then existing statutes, the New York holdings as to permissive joinder were at least fairly satisfactory. However, the subject was covered by five sections of the CPA (§§ 209, 211, 212, 213, 216) which indicated varying degrees of liberality toward the several aspects of the problem. Accordingly, in 1949 the Judicial Council recommended that the subject be treated in full in a new § 212. 15 NY Jud Council Rep 56, 209 (1949). This recommendation was enacted NY Laws 1949, c. 147. As a whole the new section did not depart greatly from the repealed sections in either effect or language. However, it followed Federal rule 20 more closely than did the earlier statutes.
Since the enactment of CPA § 212, there has been virtually no litigation involving permissive joinder carried to the appellate courts. Cf. Trillard v Horowitz, 1 AD2d 680, 146 NYS2d 512 (2d Dept 1955). Trial court decisions in the main apply the section liberally to allow the joinder. Gasperini v Manginelli, 196 Misc 547, 92 NYS2d 575 (Sup Ct 1949); Larsen v Ridge Terrace, Inc. 95 NYS2d 569 (Sup Ct 1950); Metropolitan Opera Ass’n v Wagner-Nicholas R. Corp. 101 NYS2d 483 (Sup Ct 1950); Ross v Ross, 108 NYS2d 675 (Sup Ct 1951); Better v Butoula, 203 Misc 723, 115 NYS 139 (NY Munic Ct 1952); see also Tannenbaum v Baskin, 131 NYS2d 760 (NY Munic Ct 1954) (single bill of costs for all successful parties). On the other hand there are two decisions which are somewhat retrogressive. O’Hara v Gannon, 198 Misc 929, 103 NYS2d 913 (Sup Ct 1951); Tankoos v Levine, 135 NYS2d 195 (Sup Ct 1954). Of these it may be said that the same result could have been reached by allowing separate trials in the court’s discretion under subd 3 of CPA § 212. Nothing in these cases suggests that an amendment of the CPA provision for permissive joinder is called for.
Accordingly, the new section follows CPA § 212. The last sentence of subd 1 and the last sentence of subd 2 of § 212 are omitted. In so far as they authorize separate judgments they are covered by the general judgment article. The statement that liability may be found “upon all of the evidence, without regard to the party by whom it has been introduced” is unnecessary. Cf. People v Kelly, 302 NY 512, 518, 99 NE2d 552, 554 (1951). Such matters are within the court’s broad discretion to control the manner of trial. Cf. new CPLR § 603, allowing the court to order separate trials of claims or issues and control the order of their trial.
Amendment History
Add, L 1962, ch 308, eff Sept 1, 1963.
Source & verification. Provision text, History, and Advisory
Committee Notes are reproduced verbatim from the Consolidated Laws of New York.
Last verified July 21, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: CPLR 1002 New Yorkpermissive joinder of parties New Yorkjoining multiple plaintiffs New York lawsuitjoining multiple defendants New Yorkcan I sue two defendants together New Yorkcommon question of law or fact joinderNew York civil procedure party joinder