A subsequent action against a co-obligor who was not summoned in the original action must be maintained in order to procure a judgment enforceable against his individually held property for the sum remaining unpaid upon the original judgment, and such action shall be regarded as based upon the same obligation, contract or liability as the original judgment for the purpose of obtaining any provisional remedy. The complaint in the subsequent action shall be verified. The defendant in the subsequent action may raise any defenses or counterclaims that he might have raised in the original action if the summons had been served on him when it was first served on a co-obligor, and may raise objections to the original judgment, and defenses or counterclaims that have arisen since it was entered.
§ 1502.Provisional remedies and defenses in subsequent action against co- obligor.
Article 15. Actions Against Persons Jointly Liable · Last amended 1963 · Last verified July 21, 2026
In one sentenceCPLR 1502 requires a separate, verified lawsuit to reach the individual property of a co-obligor who was never served in the original action, while letting that co-obligor raise any defense available in the earlier case.
Full Text of CPLR 1502
Plain-English Summary
A judgment against an unserved co-obligor under CPLR 1501 doesn't automatically let a plaintiff seize that person's individual assets. CPLR 1502 requires a follow-up action against the co-obligor to make the original judgment enforceable against their own property for whatever sum remains unpaid. That subsequent suit is treated as based on the same underlying obligation, contract, or liability as the original judgment, which matters for provisional remedies like attachment that depend on the nature of the claim.
The statute balances that convenience with fairness to the co-obligor being sued for the first time. The complaint in the subsequent action must be verified. The co-obligor can raise any defense or counterclaim they could have raised in the original action had they been served when the case first started, plus any defense or counterclaim that has arisen since. They can also challenge the original judgment itself -- so being named in a judgment they never had a chance to contest doesn't leave them without a way to fight it.
Frequently Asked Questions
How does a plaintiff collect from a co-obligor who was never served in the original case?
By bringing a subsequent action under CPLR 1502 against that co-obligor, which is required to reach their individually held property for the sum still unpaid on the original judgment.
Does the subsequent action under CPLR 1502 need to be verified?
Yes. The complaint in the subsequent action against the co-obligor must be verified.
Can a co-obligor sued under CPLR 1502 raise defenses to the original judgment?
Yes. They may raise any defense or counterclaim they could have raised in the original action if served when it began, along with any defense or counterclaim arising since, and they may challenge the original judgment itself.
Can a plaintiff get a provisional remedy in the subsequent action under CPLR 1502?
Yes. The subsequent action is treated as based on the same obligation, contract, or liability as the original judgment for purposes of obtaining a provisional remedy such as attachment.
Why doesn't the original judgment itself bind the unserved co-obligor's property?
Because that co-obligor never had notice or a chance to defend in the original case, CPLR 1502 requires a new action against them before their individual property can be reached.
Advisory Committee Notes
This section embodies § 1187 and the last sentence of CPA § 1185. These are part of a group of sections in Article 72 of the CPA relating to subsequent actions against defendants who are named but not served in the original action. CPA §§ 1185–1188. Under the forerunner of § 1185, the subsequent action has been held subject to the bar of the statute of limitations concerning actions for which no limitation is specifically prescribed. Hofferbergh v Nash, 191 NY 446 (1908). The provision of CPA § 1186 regarding the complaint in such an action has been covered in new CPLR rule 3016(e).
Last clause added from CPA § 1187, to indicate that defendant is not barred from raising objections to the original judgment or subsequently arising defenses or counterclaims.
The provisions in §§ 1185 through 1188 and in article 73 of the CPA that are not covered by this section or the new provisions discussed above have been omitted as unnecessary. These consist of the first sentence of §§ 1185, 1188, 1198 and 1201, the second sentence of § 1199, and the last two sentences of § 1200. The first sentence of § 1185 authorized a subsequent action against defendants who were not summoned to procure a judgment enforceable against their individual property; § 1201 apparently authorized a similar action against co-obligors who were not named as defendants in the original action. See 11 NY Jud Council Rep 238–39 (1945). There is no need for express authorization of such actions in view of § 232 of the Debtor and Creditor Law, which provides that the original judgment “shall not discharge a co-obligor who was not a party to the proceeding wherein the judgment was rendered.” Since the term “not a party” in this section is interpreted to include a person named as a defendant but not summoned, as well as a person not so named ( Emmons v Hirschberger, 270 App Div 1025, 63 NYS2d 48 (2d Dept 1946); see also Emmons v Hirschberger, 69 NYS2d 401 (Sup Ct 1947); cf. Schneiberg v Utz, 167 NYS2d 832 (Sup Ct 1957)), it covers the situations treated in both §§ 1185 and 1201. The portions of §§ 1185 and 1188 limiting the subsequent judgment to the sum remaining unpaid on the original judgment are covered by § 233 of the Debtor and Creditor Law.
The costs provision of the last sentence of § 1188 is unnecessary since the distinction between discretionary costs and costs as of right has been abolished. See new CPLR § 8101 and notes. The detailed provisions of § 1198 regarding the conclusiveness of the original judgment are also unnecessary; they are covered by general rules of res judicata and evidence. A defendant who was summoned is of course bound by the original judgment and one who was not summoned is not bound. As to the latter, the ordinary hearsay rules prevent use of the prior judgment in the subsequent action, except as an admission of the amount of the plaintiff’s demand if he seeks more in the second action, and this is all that the last sentence of § 1198 provides.
Amendment History
Add, L 1962, ch 308, § 1; amd, L 1963, ch 663, § 1, 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: suing a co-obligor New Yorkunserved defendant subsequent actionCPLR 1502 provisional remedyco-obligor defenses New York judgment