The limitations set forth in this article shall:
1. apply to any claim for contribution or indemnification, but shall not include:
§ 1602.Application.
Article 16. Limited Liability of Persons Jointly Liable · Last amended 2019 · Last verified July 21, 2026
In one sentenceCPLR 1602 lists the many claims the several-liability cap in CPLR 1601 does not reach, including motor vehicle liability, intentional or reckless conduct, certain product liability and environmental claims, and pre-existing indemnification agreements.
Full Text of CPLR 1602
(a) a claim for indemnification if, prior to the accident or occurrence on which the claim is based, the claimant and the tortfeasor had entered into a written contract in which the tortfeasor had expressly agreed to indemnify the claimant for the type of loss suffered; or
(b) a claim for indemnification by a public employee, including indemnification pursuant to section fifty-k of the general municipal law or section seventeen or eighteen of the public officers law.
2. not be construed to impair, alter, limit, modify, enlarge, abrogate or restrict (i) the limitations set forth in section twenty-a of the court of claims act; (ii) any immunity or right of indemnification available to or conferred upon any defendant for any negligent or wrongful act or omission; (iii) any right on the part of any defendant to plead and prove an affirmative defense as to culpable conduct attributable to a claimant or decedent which is claimed by such defendant in the diminution of damages in any action; and (iv) any liability arising by reason of a non-delegable duty or by reason of the doctrine of respondeat superior.
3. not apply to administrative proceedings.
4. not apply to claims under the workers’ compensation law or to a claim against a defendant where claimant has sustained a “grave injury” as defined in section eleven of the workers’ compensation law to the extent of the equitable share of any person against whom the claimant is barred from asserting a cause of action because of the applicability of the workers’ compensation law provided, however, that nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to create, impair, alter, limit, modify, enlarge, abrogate, or restrict any theory of liability upon which any person may be held liable.
5. not apply to actions requiring proof of intent.
6. not apply to any person held liable by reason of his use, operation, or ownership of a motor vehicle or motorcycle, as those terms are defined respectively in sections three hundred eleven and one hundred twenty-five of the vehicle and traffic law.
7. not apply to any person held liable for causing claimant’s injury by having acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others.
8. not apply to any person held liable by reason of the applicability of article ten of the labor law.
9. not apply to any person held liable for causing claimant’s injury by having unlawfully released into the environment a substance hazardous to public health, safety or the environment, a substance acutely hazardous to public health, safety or the environment or a hazardous waste, as defined in articles thirty-seven and twenty-seven of the environmental conservation law and in violation of article seventy-one of such law; provided, however, that nothing herein shall require that the violation of said article by such person has resulted in a criminal conviction or administrative adjudication of liability.
10. not apply to any person held liable in a product liability action where the manufacturer of the product is not a party to the action and the claimant establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that jurisdiction over the manufacturer could not with due diligence be obtained and that if the manufacturer were a party to the action, liability for claimant’s injury would have been imposed upon said manufacturer by reason of the doctrine of strict liability, to the extent of the equitable share of such manufacturer.
11. not apply to any parties found to have acted knowingly or intentionally, and in concert, to cause the acts or failures upon which liability is based; provided, however, that nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to create, impair, alter, limit, modify, enlarge, abrogate, or restrict any theory of liability upon which said parties may be held liable to the claimant.
12. in conjunction with the other provisions of this article not be construed to create or enlarge actions for contribution or indemnity barred because of the applicability of the workers’ compensation law of this state, any other state or the federal government, or section 18-201 of the general obligations law.
13. not apply to any person responsible for the disposal or presence of hazardous or dangerous materials that is the result of the unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine, when such person has been convicted of section 220.73, 220.74, 220.75 or 220.76 of the penal law.
14. not apply to any party held liable for claims arising from the failure to obey or enforce (a) an order of protection or a temporary order of protection issued or modified pursuant to article four, five, six, seven, eight or ten of the family court act, section 530.12 of the criminal procedure law, section two hundred forty or two hundred fifty-two of the domestic relations law, or (b) an order of protection or temporary order of protection issued or modified by a court of competent jurisdiction in another state, territorial or tribal jurisdiction.
Plain-English Summary
CPLR 1601 sets the general rule; CPLR 1602 takes most of the interesting cases out of it. Anyone who wants to argue the several-liability cap applies has to first clear this list of carve-outs, and the list runs fourteen subdivisions deep.
Some exceptions protect existing contractual and statutory rights: a written indemnification agreement signed before the incident, public employee indemnification, the separate damages cap in the Court of Claims Act, and any existing immunity or non-delegable-duty liability all survive untouched. Others carve out entire categories of tort claims from the cap altogether -- motor vehicle and motorcycle liability, claims requiring proof of intent, reckless disregard for the safety of others, product liability claims against a defendant standing in for an unreachable manufacturer, unlawful release of hazardous substances, and parties who acted knowingly and in concert. A few reach specific, narrower fact patterns: certain labor law liability, illegal disposal of methamphetamine waste, and failure to obey an order of protection.
The practical effect is that CPLR 1601 ends up governing a narrower slice of personal injury litigation than its broad opening language might suggest. Ordinary car accident cases, for instance, fall outside the cap entirely under subdivision 6, since motor vehicle and motorcycle liability is excluded regardless of a defendant's percentage of fault.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the New York several-liability cap apply to car accidents?
No. CPLR 1602 excludes anyone held liable by reason of using, operating, or owning a motor vehicle or motorcycle from the CPLR 1601 cap.
Does an indemnification contract override the CPLR 1601 cap?
Yes, if it's a written contract signed before the accident in which the tortfeasor expressly agreed to indemnify the claimant for that type of loss -- CPLR 1602 exempts it from the cap.
Does the several-liability cap apply to intentional torts?
No. CPLR 1602 excludes actions requiring proof of intent, as well as parties found to have acted knowingly and in concert to cause the harm, and anyone who acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others.
Does CPLR 1602 apply to product liability claims?
The cap doesn't apply where the manufacturer isn't a party, the claimant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that jurisdiction over the manufacturer couldn't be obtained despite due diligence, and strict liability would otherwise have reached that manufacturer.
Does CPLR 1602 apply to workers' compensation claims?
No, the cap doesn't apply to claims under the workers' compensation law, and it doesn't apply to a defendant's equitable share tied to a person the claimant can't sue because of the workers' compensation bar, unless the claimant proves a grave injury.
Is there an exception to CPLR 1601 for orders of protection?
Yes. CPLR 1602 excludes claims arising from the failure to obey or enforce an order of protection issued under several specified family court, criminal, and domestic relations provisions.
Amendment History
Add, L 1986, ch 682, § 6, eff July 30, 1986; amd, L 1996, ch 635, §§ 6, 7, eff Sept 10, 1996; L 2005, ch 394, § 12, eff Oct 1, 2005; L 2019, ch 180, § 1, effective October 20, 2019.
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: exceptions to several liability New YorkCPLR 1602 applicationmotor vehicle exception several liabilityNew York several liability exclusionswhen does the several liability cap not applyCPLR 1602 exemptionsseveral liability workers compensation exception