(a) Action against several persons. Where causes of action exist against several persons, the commencement or maintenance of an action against one, or the recovery against one of a judgment which is unsatisfied, shall not be deemed an election of remedies which bars an action against the others.
§ 3002.Actions and relief not barred for inconsistency.
Article 30. Remedies and Pleading · Last amended 1963 · Last verified July 21, 2026
In one sentenceCPLR 3002 sets aside the old election-of-remedies trap in six specific situations, so a plaintiff who pursues one defendant, one legal theory, or one remedy first does not automatically lose the right to pursue another later.
Full Text of CPLR 3002
(b) Action against agent and undisclosed principal. Where causes of action exist against an agent and his undisclosed principal, the commencement or maintenance, after disclosure of the principal, of an action against either, or the recovery of a judgment against either which is unsatisfied, shall not be deemed an election of remedies which bars an action against the other.
(c) Action for conversion and on contract. Where causes of action exist against several persons for the conversion of property and upon express or implied contract, the commencement or maintenance of an action against one, or the recovery against one of a judgment which is unsatisfied, either for the conversion or upon the contract, shall not be deemed an election of remedies which bars an action against the others either for the conversion or upon the contract.
(d) Action on contract and to reform. A judgment denying recovery in an action upon an agreement in writing shall not be deemed to bar an action to reform such agreement and to enforce it as reformed.
(e) Claim for damages and rescission. A claim for damages sustained as a result of fraud or misrepresentation in the inducement of a contract or other transaction, shall not be deemed inconsistent with a claim for rescission or based upon rescission. In an action for rescission or based upon rescission the aggrieved party shall be allowed to obtain complete relief in one action, including rescission, restitution of the benefits, if any, conferred by him as a result of the transaction, and damages to which he is entitled because of such fraud or misrepresentation; but such complete relief shall not include duplication of items of recovery.
(f) Vendee’s lien not to depend upon form of action. When relief is sought, in an action or by way of defense or counterclaim, by a vendee under an agreement for the sale or exchange of real property, because of the rescission, failure, invalidity or disaffirmance of such agreement, a vendee’s lien upon the property shall not be denied merely because the claim is for rescission, or is based upon the rescission, failure, invalidity or disaffirmance of such agreement.
Plain-English Summary
Under older common-law doctrine, choosing one remedy or one defendant could forfeit the right to pursue another, even when the first choice turned out to be a dead end. CPLR 3002 rolls back that harsh result in six defined circumstances, so a plaintiff isn't punished for guessing wrong about which path would pay off.
Several of the carve-outs deal with pursuing different people for the same underlying wrong. Suing one of several people who may be liable, or recovering an unsatisfied judgment against one of them, doesn't bar going after the others. The same holds when an agent and an undisclosed principal are both potentially liable: suing one after the principal is disclosed, or recovering an unsatisfied judgment against one, doesn't bar suing the other. And where a claim for conversion of property and a claim on a contract could both lie against several people, pursuing one theory against one person doesn't close off the other theory against the others.
Other carve-outs deal with inconsistent theories against the same claim. A judgment denying recovery on a written agreement doesn't bar a later action to reform that agreement and enforce it as reformed. A claim for fraud or misrepresentation damages isn't treated as inconsistent with a claim for rescission, so a plaintiff can seek rescission, restitution of what was given up, and fraud damages together in one action, though not duplicate recovery for the same loss. And a vendee's lien on real property doesn't disappear just because the underlying claim is framed as one for rescission rather than something else.
Taken together, the section reflects a plaintiff-friendly instinct: courts should decide disputes on their merits, not on which door a party happened to walk through first.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is election of remedies and how does CPLR 3002 limit it?
Election of remedies is the older doctrine that pursuing one remedy could forfeit others; CPLR 3002 removes that forfeiture in six specific situations, including suits against multiple potentially liable people and claims combining rescission with fraud damages.
Can I sue a second defendant if my judgment against the first wasn't paid?
Yes. CPLR 3002(a) says recovering an unsatisfied judgment against one of several potentially liable people does not bar an action against the others.
Does suing an agent stop me from later suing the undisclosed principal in New York?
No. CPLR 3002(b) allows an action against either the agent or the principal, after the principal is disclosed, without an unsatisfied judgment against one barring an action against the other.
Can I seek both rescission and fraud damages in the same New York lawsuit?
Yes. CPLR 3002(e) treats a claim for fraud or misrepresentation damages as consistent with a rescission claim, letting a plaintiff recover rescission, restitution, and damages in one action, though not duplicate recovery for the same loss.
Does a failed contract claim bar me from later asking a court to reform the contract?
No. CPLR 3002(d) says a judgment denying recovery on a written agreement does not bar a later action to reform that agreement and enforce it as reformed.
Does my choice of legal theory affect a vendee's lien on real property?
No. CPLR 3002(f) says a vendee's lien is not denied merely because the claim is framed as one for rescission or based on the agreement's rescission, failure, invalidity, or disaffirmance.
Advisory Committee Notes
Subd (a) through (e) of this section correspond to CPA §§ 112-a through 112-e, respectively; subd (f) corresponds to former § 112-h. Those provisions have been placed in the same section because they all deal with the problem of inconsistency. They were all added to the CPA upon recommendation of the Law Revision Commission—§§ 112-a through 112-d in 1939 (see NY Law Rev Comm’n Rep 205-99 (1939), § 112-e in 1941 (see id. at 283–344 (1941) and § 112-h in 1947. See id. at 249-70 (1947).
Amendment History
Add, L 1962, ch 308, § 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: election of remedies New Yorksuing multiple defendants same claim NYrescission and damages same lawsuitagent undisclosed principal lawsuit electionvendee's lien inconsistent remedies