(a) New action by plaintiff. If an action is timely commenced and is terminated in any other manner than by a voluntary discontinuance, a failure to obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant, a dismissal of the complaint for neglect to prosecute the action, or a final judgment upon the merits, the plaintiff, or, if the plaintiff dies, and the cause of action survives, his or her executor or administrator, may commence a new action upon the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences within six months after the termination provided that the new action would have been timely commenced at the time of commencement of the prior action and that service upon defendant is effected within such six-month period. Where a dismissal is one for neglect to prosecute the action made pursuant to rule thirty-two hundred sixteen of this chapter or otherwise, the judge shall set forth on the record the specific conduct constituting the neglect, which conduct shall demonstrate a general pattern of delay in proceeding with the litigation.
§ 205.Termination of action.
Article 2. Limitations of Time · Last amended 2022 · Last verified July 21, 2026
In one sentenceGives a plaintiff whose timely action ended for reasons other than voluntary discontinuance, failure to obtain jurisdiction, a neglect-to-prosecute dismissal, or a merits judgment six months to commence a new action on the same claim.
Full Text of CPLR 205
(b) Defense or counterclaim. Where the defendant has served an answer and the action is terminated in any manner, and a new action upon the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences is commenced by the plaintiff or his successor in interest, the assertion of any cause of action or defense by the defendant in the new action shall be timely if it was timely asserted in the prior action.
(c) Application. This section also applies to a proceeding brought under the workers’ compensation law but shall not apply to any proceeding governed by section two hundred five-a of this article.
Plain-English Summary
Litigation doesn't always end the way a plaintiff planned, and a technical or procedural termination shouldn't necessarily cost a plaintiff the whole case if the underlying claim was filed on time. CPLR 205(a) gives a plaintiff whose timely action was dismissed — for reasons that don't go to the merits and don't reflect the plaintiff walking away or failing to move the case — six months to start a new action on the same transaction or occurrence, so long as the new filing would have been timely back when the original action began, and the new defendant is served within that six-month window.
The exceptions matter as much as the rule. A plaintiff who voluntarily discontinues, who never got personal jurisdiction over the defendant, whose case was thrown out for neglecting to prosecute it, or who lost on a final judgment on the merits, gets no extra six months — the statute exists to rescue plaintiffs from procedural misfortune, not to give a second try to someone who abandoned the case or lost it outright. When a court dismisses for neglect to prosecute, it must put the specific pattern of delay on the record, so a plaintiff can't be shut out of this savings provision by a conclusory finding.
Subdivision (b) protects the defendant's side of the same coin: if the defendant already answered and raised a defense or counterclaim in the first action, and the plaintiff refiles under subdivision (a), that defense or counterclaim carries over as timely in the new action. Subdivision (c) extends the savings statute to workers' compensation proceedings but carves out actions covered by the more specific real-property savings rule in CPLR 205-a.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is New York's “six-month savings statute”?
CPLR 205(a) is commonly called the six-month savings statute — it lets a plaintiff whose timely action ended for reasons other than a few listed exceptions refile the same claim within six months and still have it count as timely.
Does CPLR 205 help me if my case was dismissed for failure to prosecute?
No. A dismissal for neglect to prosecute is one of the exceptions CPLR 205(a) lists, so it doesn't qualify for the six-month refiling right, though the court must specify the exact conduct showing that neglect on the record.
Can I use CPLR 205(a) after voluntarily discontinuing my own lawsuit?
No. A voluntary discontinuance is expressly excluded from CPLR 205(a)'s six-month extension, since the statute is meant to rescue plaintiffs from procedural misfortune, not to reward walking away from a case.
Does the new action have to be identical to the one that was dismissed?
It has to be based on the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the original claim, and it must have been timely when the original action was commenced.
Does CPLR 205 apply to workers' compensation proceedings?
Yes. CPLR 205(c) extends the section to proceedings under the Workers' Compensation Law, but excludes proceedings governed by the separate real-property savings statute in CPLR 205-a.
Advisory Committee Notes
This section is substantially the same as CPA § 23 except that it reduces to six months the present period of one year within which a new action may be commenced after reversal or termination of the prior action. It would not reduce a limitation otherwise applicable.
The phrase “a judgment therein is reversed on appeal without awarding a new trial” has been stricken; it is included within the sense of the phrase “terminated.” As the section formerly read the exceptions, including that for “a final judgment upon the merits,” did not appear to apply to reversals upon an appeal without grant of a new trial. Nevertheless, having had his day in court and lost on the merits, the plaintiff would be prevented by the theory of res judicata from bringing a new action. Thus, a literal reading of the statute is not possible; the proposed language accords with the apparent design of the drafters of this provision by treating terminations after appeal in the same way as a termination at any other stage.
The phrase “and the defendant may interpose any defense or counterclaim which might have been interposed in the original action” has been added to prevent the defendant’s being disadvantaged by the extension of time for assertion of the plaintiff’s cause of action.
Amendment History
Add, L 1962, ch 308, § 1; amd, L 1963, ch 541, § 1; L 1965, ch 233, § 1; L 1978, ch 51, § 1, eff April 11, 1978; L 1992, ch 216 § 2, eff July 1, 1992; L 2008, ch 156, § 1, eff July 7, 2008; L 2022, ch 821, § 5, effective December 30, 2022.
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: New York six month savings statuterefile lawsuit after dismissal New Yorkstatute of limitations after case dismissed New York