Where an action is brought against an officer to recover a chattel levied upon by virtue of an execution or order of attachment, or to recover damages for the detention or sale of such a chattel, and an undertaking indemnifying the officer against such acts has been given, the court may order that the indemnitor be substituted for the officer.
§ 1020.Substitution of indemnitors for executing or attaching officer
Article 10. Parties Generally · Last amended 1963 · Last verified July 21, 2026
In one sentenceCPLR 1020 lets a court substitute the indemnitor for the officer as defendant when a lawsuit against an executing or attaching officer over a levied chattel involves an indemnity undertaking that protects the officer against that liability.
Full Text of CPLR 1020
Plain-English Summary
When a sheriff or other officer levies on property under an execution or an order of attachment, the officer can end up sued over that levy -- to recover the chattel itself, or damages for detaining or selling it. If someone gave an undertaking indemnifying the officer against exactly that kind of claim, CPLR 1020 lets the court substitute the indemnitor for the officer as the defendant.
That substitution makes sense because the indemnitor, not the officer, bears the real financial exposure once the undertaking is in place. The officer acted at the direction of the process, while the indemnitor promised to cover the consequences of that action; CPLR 1020 lets the litigation follow the money rather than keeping the officer tied up defending a claim someone else has already agreed to answer for.
The rule is narrow by design -- it applies to officers executing on judgments or enforcing orders of attachment, and only when an indemnity undertaking covering the specific claim already exists. Outside that setup, an officer sued over a levy remains the defendant unless another substitution rule in this article applies.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can an indemnitor be substituted for a sheriff in a New York lawsuit?
Yes. CPLR 1020 lets the court substitute the indemnitor for the officer when an undertaking indemnifying the officer against the claim has been given in connection with a levy under an execution or order of attachment.
What is an indemnitor under CPLR 1020?
It's the person or entity that gave an undertaking protecting an executing or attaching officer against liability for levying on, detaining, or selling a chattel, and who can then be substituted for the officer as defendant.
When does CPLR 1020 apply?
It applies when an action is brought against an officer to recover a chattel levied under an execution or attachment order, or to recover damages for detaining or selling that chattel, and an indemnity undertaking covering the officer already exists.
Why would a court substitute an indemnitor for an officer in a levy lawsuit?
Because the indemnitor has already agreed to bear the financial responsibility for the officer's actions, CPLR 1020 lets the case proceed against the party truly exposed to liability rather than the officer who acted under legal process.
Does CPLR 1020 require the court's order to substitute an indemnitor?
Yes. The rule provides that the court may order the indemnitor substituted for the officer; it isn't an automatic substitution that happens without a court order.
Advisory Committee Notes
This rule replaces CPA §§ 699, 705 and 967. The forerunners of §§ 69–705 were added as new by the authors of the Throop Code to abrogate the case law doctrine that the officer was entitled to maintain the defense of the action himself and the indemnitor’s only recourse for improper management of the defense was an action against the sheriff. See CPA § 1421, note (Throop ed 1880). As originally enacted, the forerunner of § 699 required that the court “shall” order the substitution; however, when the word “shall” was changed to “may” in 1900 (NY Laws 1900, c. 115) the need for special statutory treatment of this kind of substitution ceased to exist. See 1 Report of the Board of Statutory Consolidation on the Simplification of the Civil Practice of New York 324 (1915).
The remaining provisions (§§ 700–705), detailing the procedure to be followed in making such substitution, are omitted as unnecessary. Insofar as they prescribe terms and notice requirements, they may be left to the court’s discretion; and insofar as they deal with joinder and severance they are simply facets of more general rules. The sentence in § 704 relating to single costs is covered by new CPLR § 82.2. The effect of discontinuance or dismissal, dealt with by the last sentence of § 704, is governed by the ordinary rules of res judicata and new CPLR rule 5013. Cf. CPA § 1090.
Section 967, in the attachment provisions of the CPA, is also omitted as covered by the new rule. It was added by the drafters of the act simply to “recall the practitioner’s attention” to sections 699–705, which are by their own terms applicable to attachments. See Report of the Joint Legislative Committee on the Simplification of Civil Practice 486 (1919).
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 1020 New Yorksubstitution of indemnitor New Yorksheriff sued over levy New Yorkexecution attachment indemnity undertaking New Yorkindemnitor substituted for officer CPLRlevy chattel lawsuit New York substitutionattaching officer sued New York civil procedure