New York State Law
New York changed important car accident laws in 2026, including how comparative negligence works and the elimination of the 90/180 serious injury category. These changes can affect whether an injured person can recover compensation and which cases are governed by the new rules.
New York made some major changes to its car accident laws in 2026. If you are injured in a Long Island car accident, these changes could affect whether you can recover money for your injuries.
As a Long Island personal injury attorney, there are three changes I think accident victims need to understand.
| 1 | New York changed its comparative negligence law for car accident cases. If you are more than 50 percent responsible for an accident, you may now be prevented from recovering anything. |
| 2 | New York eliminated what personal injury attorneys call the 90/180 serious injury rule. |
| 3 | The new law does not apply based only on the date of the accident. The date your lawsuit is started can determine whether the old or new law applies. |
These are important changes, but they can be confusing. I am going to break them down as simply as possible.
Let’s start with comparative negligence.
Comparative negligence is simply a way of dividing responsibility for an accident.
Sometimes one driver is completely responsible for an accident. Other times, two or more drivers share the blame.
For example, suppose another driver makes a left turn in front of you. However, you were speeding when the accident happened.
A jury might decide the other driver was 80 percent responsible and you were 20 percent responsible.
For many years, New York followed what is called pure comparative negligence.
Under that rule, you could recover money even if you were mostly responsible for causing the accident. Your recovery was simply reduced by your percentage of fault.
Suppose a jury found that your injuries were worth $1 million, but you were 20 percent responsible for the accident.
Your $1 million award would be reduced by 20 percent.
You would receive $800,000.
The new law changes what happens when an injured person is more responsible for the accident than the other side.
If you are more than 50 percent responsible for causing a covered motor vehicle accident, you can now be completely prevented from recovering compensation.
Here is a simple example.
A jury decides:
If the plaintiff’s damages are $1 million, the plaintiff can still recover. The $1 million is reduced by the plaintiff’s 40 percent share of fault.
The plaintiff receives $600,000.
Now change the numbers slightly:
The result is completely different.
The plaintiff receives nothing.
That is one of the biggest changes to New York car accident law.
The wording of the new law is important.
It says the injured person’s fault must be greater than the fault of the person or people from whom compensation is being sought before recovery is barred.
So consider this example:
Plaintiff: 50 percent
Defendant: 50 percent
The plaintiff’s fault is not greater than the defendant’s fault.
The plaintiff can therefore still recover, although the award would be reduced by 50 percent.
On a $1 million award, the plaintiff would receive $500,000.
One percentage point can now make an enormous difference.
At 50 percent fault, a plaintiff with $1 million in damages could recover $500,000.
At 51 percent fault, that same plaintiff could recover nothing.
Things become a little more interesting when several drivers are responsible for an accident.
Suppose three vehicles are involved in an accident. The jury decides that each driver is 33.33 percent responsible.
One of those drivers is the injured plaintiff.
The plaintiff is therefore:
33.33 percent at fault.
The two defendants together are:
66.67 percent at fault.
The plaintiff’s fault is compared to the combined fault of the defendants.
Because the plaintiff’s 33.33 percent is less than the defendants’ combined 66.67 percent, the plaintiff can recover.
If the jury awards $1 million for pain and suffering, the award would be reduced by the plaintiff’s 33.33 percent share of fault.
The plaintiff would recover approximately $666,700.
Here is another example that may surprise you.
Suppose three drivers are involved in an accident, but this time the injured plaintiff did absolutely nothing wrong.
The jury decides:
Plaintiff: 0 percent at fault
Defendant #1: 99 percent at fault
Defendant #2: 1 percent at fault
The jury awards the plaintiff $1 million for pain and suffering.
Because the plaintiff was not responsible for the accident, there is no reduction. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the full $1 million.
But here is the surprising part.
In a typical New York motor vehicle accident case, the defendant who was only 1 percent responsible could potentially be responsible to the plaintiff for the entire $1 million pain and suffering award.
The plaintiff cannot collect $1 million from each defendant. The total recovery is still limited to the $1 million award. But the law may allow the injured plaintiff to collect the money from either responsible defendant.
The defendants may then have claims against each other over who should ultimately pay what share.
This creates an interesting contrast under New York law.
A plaintiff who is 51 percent responsible may recover nothing.
Yet a defendant who is only 1 percent responsible may potentially be responsible for paying the entire pain and suffering award.
This is one reason determining fault in a New York car accident case has become even more important.
Evidence of fault has always been important in a car accident case. The new law makes it even more important.
Imagine that an accident happens at an intersection.
There may be surveillance cameras at nearby businesses. There may be witnesses. One of the vehicles may have a dash camera. The vehicles themselves may contain electronic information that helps explain what happened.
That evidence can disappear.
A business may record over its surveillance video. Vehicles may be repaired or destroyed. Witnesses can become difficult to locate.
Under the old law, evidence that changed a plaintiff’s percentage of fault might simply reduce the amount of money the plaintiff received.
Now that same evidence could determine whether the plaintiff receives anything at all.
The second major change involves New York’s serious injury threshold.
To understand this change, you first need to understand a basic part of New York’s No-Fault insurance system.
Generally, being injured in a car accident does not automatically give you the right to recover money for pain and suffering.
Your injury usually must qualify as a serious injury under New York law.
There are several ways to meet this requirement.
For example, a fracture qualifies as a serious injury. Other categories include significant disfigurement, significant limitation of use of a body function or system, and certain permanent limitations.
Before the 2026 change, there was another category.
It was commonly called the 90/180 rule.
That category has now been eliminated.
Despite its name, the 90/180 rule was not simply about missing 90 days of work.
The old law allowed an injured person to potentially qualify as having a serious injury when a medically determined injury prevented that person from performing substantially all of his or her normal daily activities for at least 90 of the first 180 days after the accident.
Why was that important?
Because not every serious injury lasts forever.
For example, someone could suffer a significant back injury in a car accident. The person might be unable to work for four months. He might need physical therapy and regular medical treatment. He could have difficulty driving, exercising, caring for his home and doing many of the things he normally did.
Fortunately, he might eventually get better.
Under the old law, that person could potentially rely upon the 90/180 category to satisfy New York’s serious injury requirement.
Under the new law, that category is gone.
No.
This is probably the most important point to understand about the change to the serious injury law.
New York did not change the law to say that every injury must be permanent.
Other serious injury categories still exist.
For example, the law still recognizes a significant limitation of use of a body function or system.
It also continues to recognize certain permanent injuries, fractures, significant disfigurement and other serious injury categories.
So someone with a neck, back, shoulder or knee injury may still be able to meet the serious injury threshold.
The difference is that the person can no longer rely solely on the old 90/180 category in a case governed by the new law.
I have always believed that good medical documentation is extremely important in a car accident case.
It is even more important now.
Doctors should document what is actually wrong with the injured person. Depending upon the injury, important evidence may include MRIs, X-rays, range-of-motion testing, specialist examinations, injections, surgery and other objective medical findings.
The person’s actual limitations also matter.
Can the person work? Can she exercise? Can she lift things? Can she take care of her children? Can she perform the activities she normally performed before the accident?
The elimination of the 90/180 category does not mean that a person with a herniated disc or another non-fracture injury cannot have a serious injury.
It means the medical evidence supporting the remaining serious injury categories becomes even more important.
This is the third part of the new law that people need to understand.
The changes took effect on May 26, 2026.
You might assume that means the new rules only apply to accidents that happened on or after May 26, 2026.
That is not what the law says.
The new provisions apply to actions and proceedings commenced on or after May 26, 2026.
In simple terms, you need to look at when the lawsuit was started, not just when the accident happened.
Let’s use an example.
Suppose you were injured in a Long Island car accident on December 1, 2025.
If your lawsuit was started in March 2026, it was commenced before the new law took effect. Based upon the effective-date language, the old rules would generally apply.
Now suppose another person was injured in an accident on that exact same day.
That person’s lawsuit was not started until June 2026.
The accident happened in 2025, but the lawsuit was commenced after May 26, 2026. On its face, the new law applies.
So two people injured on the same day could potentially have different rules apply to their cases simply because their lawsuits were started on different dates.
This is another area where people can get confused.
A lawsuit is not commenced simply because you hire a lawyer.
It is not commenced because your attorney contacts an insurance company.
It is not commenced because you file a No-Fault claim.
And it is not commenced because settlement negotiations have started.
In New York, a lawsuit is generally commenced when a summons and complaint, or a summons with notice, is filed with the court.
That filing date can therefore be extremely important when deciding whether the old or new law applies.
No.
These changes are aimed at personal injury cases that fall under New York’s automobile No-Fault law.
They should not be confused with a change to comparative negligence for every type of accident in New York.
For example, the new automobile rule does not simply replace New York’s traditional comparative negligence law for every slip and fall, construction accident or other personal injury claim.
This article is about motor vehicle personal injury cases governed by New York’s No-Fault law.
There has been a lot of discussion about these new laws, so it is also important to understand what did not change.
New York did not eliminate the serious injury threshold.
It eliminated the 90/180 category.
A fracture still qualifies as a serious injury. Significant limitation remains a category. Permanent consequential limitation remains a category. Other serious injury categories also remain.
New York also did not say that anyone who shares some responsibility for an accident automatically loses the case.
A plaintiff can still recover when partially at fault, as long as the plaintiff’s share of fault does not cross the line created by the new law. The amount recovered is then reduced by the plaintiff’s percentage of fault.
“For years, I have told clients that two of the biggest issues in a car accident case are how the accident happened and how badly the person was injured.”
Steven Palermo
The new law makes both questions even more important.
If fault is disputed, evidence should be gathered quickly. A few percentage points can now make the difference between recovering substantial compensation and recovering nothing.
If the injuries are disputed, good medical documentation is critical. The 90/180 category is no longer available in cases governed by the new law, but several other serious injury categories remain.
Finally, don’t assume you know which law applies simply by looking at the date of your accident.
An accident that happened before May 26, 2026 may still be affected by these changes if the lawsuit was commenced on or after that date.
If you were injured in a Long Island car accident around the time these laws changed, one of the first things your attorney should determine is which version of the law applies to your case.
New York changed the rules for car accident victims who are partly responsible for causing their accidents. Under the new law, if an injured person's share of fault is greater than the combined fault of the defendants, that person may be completely barred from recovering compensation.
Yes. Being partly responsible does not automatically prevent you from recovering money. If you are 20 percent responsible and the other driver is 80 percent responsible, for example, you can still recover. Your total damages would generally be reduced by your 20 percent share of fault.
If you are 51 percent responsible and the other driver is 49 percent responsible, the new law can prevent you from recovering anything. This is a major change. Under New York's old pure comparative negligence rule, you could still have recovered 49 percent of your damages.
The new law says the injured person's fault must be greater than the other side's fault before recovery is barred. If both drivers are exactly 50 percent responsible, the plaintiff can still potentially recover. However, the plaintiff's damages would generally be reduced by his or her 50 percent share of fault.
When there are multiple defendants, the plaintiff's fault is compared with the combined fault of the defendants. For example, if the plaintiff is 33 percent responsible and two defendants together are 67 percent responsible, the plaintiff can still recover. The award would generally be reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault.
The old 90/180 rule allowed certain accident victims to meet the serious injury requirement when a medically determined injury prevented them from performing substantially all of their normal activities for at least 90 of the first 180 days following the accident. The 2026 law eliminated this serious injury category.
No. New York still has several ways to establish a serious injury. One important category is a significant limitation of use of a body function or system. Fractures and certain other injuries also remain covered. Eliminating the 90/180 rule does not mean every serious injury must be permanent.
The changes took effect on May 26, 2026. An important part of the law is that the changes apply to actions and proceedings commenced on or after that date. This means the date a lawsuit was started can be more important than the date the accident happened.
Yes. An accident could have happened in 2025 or earlier and still be affected by the new law if the lawsuit was commenced on or after May 26, 2026. This is why both the accident date and the date the lawsuit was filed need to be considered.
No. These changes concern personal injury actions governed by New York's automobile No-Fault law. They should not be viewed as a change to the rules for every personal injury claim. Slip and falls, construction accidents and other types of cases may be governed by different rules.
The information provided in this blog is for general informational purposes only and reflects the opinions of the author. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is different, and results depend on the specific facts and applicable law. You should not act or rely on any information in this blog without first seeking advice from a qualified attorney regarding your individual situation.
