§ 214-c.Certain actions to be commenced within three years of discovery.
Article 2. Limitations of Time · Last amended 1992 · Last verified July 21, 2026
In one sentenceCPLR 214-c sets a three-year deadline for personal injury or property damage claims caused by the latent effects of exposure to a substance, running from discovery of the injury rather than from the exposure itself, with a further one-year window if the cause is discovered later.
1. In this section: “exposure” means direct or indirect exposure by absorption, contact, ingestion, inhalation, implantation or injection.
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 214, the three year period within which an action to recover damages for personal injury or injury to property caused by the latent effects of exposure to any substance or combination of substances, in any form, upon or within the body or upon or within property must be commenced shall be computed from the date of discovery of the injury by the plaintiff or from the date when through the exercise of reasonable diligence such injury should have been discovered by the plaintiff, whichever is earlier.
3. For the purposes of sections fifty-e and fifty-i of the general municipal law, section thirty-eight hundred thirteen of the education law and the provisions of any general, special or local law or charter requiring as a condition precedent to commencement of an action or special proceeding that a notice of claim be filed or presented within a specified period of time after the claim or action accrued, a claim or action for personal injury or injury to property caused by the latent effects of exposure to any substance or combination of substances, in any form, upon or within the body or upon or within property shall be deemed to have accrued on the date of discovery of the injury by the plaintiff or on the date when through the exercise of reasonable diligence the injury should have been discovered, whichever is earlier.
4. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivisions two and three of this section, where the discovery of the cause of the injury is alleged to have occurred less than five years after discovery of the injury or when with reasonable diligence such injury should have been discovered, whichever is earlier, an action may be commenced or a claim filed within one year of such discovery of the cause of the injury; provided, however, if any such action is commenced or claim filed after the period in which it would otherwise have been authorized pursuant to subdivision two or three of this section the plaintiff or claimant shall be required to allege and prove that technical, scientific or medical knowledge and information sufficient to ascertain the cause of his injury had not been discovered, identified or determined prior to the expiration of the period within which the action or claim would have been authorized and that he has otherwise satisfied the requirements of subdivisions two and three of this section.
5. This section shall not be applicable to any action for medical or dental malpractice.
6. This section shall be applicable to acts, omissions or failures occurring prior to, on or after July first, nineteen hundred eighty-six, except that this section shall not be applicable to any act, omission or failure:
(a)which occurred prior to July first, nineteen hundred eighty-six, and
(b)which caused or contributed to an injury that either was discovered or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered prior to such date, and
(c)an action for which was or would have been barred because the applicable period of limitation had expired prior to such date.
Plain-English Summary
CPLR 214-c defines exposure broadly — absorption, contact, ingestion, inhalation, implantation, or injection — and addresses a recurring problem in toxic tort cases: injuries from substances like asbestos or industrial chemicals often don't manifest for years after the exposure that caused them. Anchoring the three-year clock to the date of exposure, as CPLR 214's general rule would, could bar a claim before the injury was even knowable. This section instead starts the three years running from discovery of the injury, or from when it reasonably should have been discovered.
Subdivision 4 adds a further layer for cases where the injury was known but its cause wasn't: if a plaintiff discovers the specific cause of an already-known injury less than five years after discovering the injury itself, that plaintiff gets one more year from the date of that discovery to sue — even after the ordinary three-year period, or an applicable notice-of-claim deadline, has already run. Using that extra year requires proving that the technical, scientific, or medical knowledge needed to identify the cause wasn't available before the original period expired.
The section carves out medical and dental malpractice entirely, leaving those claims to CPLR 214-a. It reaches conduct occurring before its 1986 enactment as well as after, except where the injury was already discovered — and already time-barred — before the section took effect. It also sets the accrual date for notice-of-claim deadlines against municipalities and school districts under the General Municipal Law and Education Law, tying those procedural requirements to the same discovery-based approach.
CPLR 214-c is the doctrinal parent of several narrower discovery statutes that followed it: CPLR 214-f for superfund site exposure, CPLR 214-h for water supply contamination, and CPLR 214-i-B for military toxic exposure, extending an approach the legislature first used five years earlier in CPLR 214-b. Each borrows the same core idea that a claim shouldn't be measured from the exposure date when the injury takes years to surface.
Frequently Asked Questions
What kinds of claims does CPLR 214-c cover?
Personal injury or property damage caused by the latent effects of exposure to a substance or combination of substances, in any form, upon or within the body or property.
When does the three-year clock start under CPLR 214-c?
At discovery of the injury, or when it reasonably should have been discovered, rather than at the date of exposure.
What if I didn't learn what caused my injury until years after I knew I was hurt?
CPLR 214-c can give one more year from discovery of the cause, if that discovery came less than five years after discovering the injury, but only if the plaintiff proves the technical, scientific, or medical knowledge needed to identify the cause wasn't available sooner.
Does CPLR 214-c apply to medical malpractice claims?
No. The section expressly excludes any action for medical or dental malpractice, which is governed instead by CPLR 214-a.
Does CPLR 214-c cover exposure injuries from before it was enacted in 1986?
Yes, generally, unless the injury was already discovered — or reasonably should have been — and already time-barred before the section's July 1, 1986 effective date.
Does CPLR 214-c affect notice-of-claim deadlines against a municipality?
Yes. It also fixes the accrual date used for notice-of-claim requirements under the General Municipal Law and the Education Law for these kinds of exposure injuries.
Amendment History
Add, L 1986, ch 682, § 2, eff July 30, 1986; amd, L 1992, ch 551, § 1, eff July 24, 1992.
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 toxic tort discovery rule statute of limitationsasbestos lawsuit deadline New Yorklatent injury exposure lawsuit time limit NYwhen does the clock start for a toxic exposure lawsuitdiscovery of cause rule New York toxic tort