Notwithstanding any contrary claim based on common law or a provision of any other law, no finding or determination made pursuant to this article shall be interpreted as binding, or having collateral estoppel or similar effect, in any other action or proceeding, or with respect to any other determination or finding, in any court, forum or administrative proceeding.
§ 6347.Effect of findings and determinations in subsequent proceedings.
Article 63-A. Extreme Risk Protection Orders · Last amended 2019 · Last verified July 21, 2026
In one sentenceCPLR 6347 makes clear that any finding or determination made in an extreme risk protection order proceeding has no binding or collateral estoppel effect in any other court, forum, or proceeding.
Full Text of CPLR 6347
Plain-English Summary
CPLR 6347 keeps an extreme risk protection order proceeding self-contained. Whatever a court finds or decides under Article 63-A, whether granting, denying, renewing, or modifying an order, cannot be treated as binding, and has no collateral estoppel or similar preclusive effect, in any other action, proceeding, or determination, in any court, forum, or administrative body.
The section applies regardless of any common law rule or other statute that might otherwise give a finding preclusive weight, and it protects both sides equally: a petitioner cannot use an ERPO finding to lock in an outcome in a later custody dispute or licensing matter, and a respondent cannot point to a denied petition as proof of anything in some other case.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can an extreme risk protection order finding be used against someone in a different lawsuit?
No. CPLR 6347 provides that no finding or determination made under Article 63-A binds or has collateral estoppel effect in any other action or proceeding.
Does CPLR 6347 protect the respondent, the petitioner, or both?
Both. The section blocks any finding in an ERPO case, however it comes out, from carrying preclusive weight elsewhere for either side.
Can a criminal court rely on an ERPO finding to decide a criminal case?
No. CPLR 6347 bars a finding from an extreme risk protection order proceeding from binding any other court or forum, including a criminal proceeding.
Does a denied ERPO petition mean the respondent must have been safe?
No. Because the statute strips findings of preclusive effect elsewhere, a denial in an ERPO case is not treated as a determination on that question for any other purpose.
Why does the ERPO statute limit the effect of its own findings?
To keep the streamlined ERPO process from being used, or misused, as a shortcut to establish facts in unrelated custody, licensing, or criminal matters.
Amendment History
L 2019, ch 19, § 1, effective August 24, 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: ERPO collateral estoppel New Yorkdoes a red flag order affect other casesextreme risk protection order preclusive effect