As a lifelong New Yorker, I strongly support Gov. Kathy Hochul’s proposed auto reforms to improve roadway safety and make New York more affordable for families and businesses. In my legal practice, I represent everyday New Yorkers and small businesses in personal injury and motor vehicle accident cases, giving me a firsthand view of how the current system operates.
There has been plenty of noise surrounding these reforms, but what’s missing from the unfounded attacks is a substantive discussion of what the proposals actually do. Even more concerning is the lack of acknowledgment of the fraud that has permeated personal injury litigation in New York and the strain it places on our economy. Too often, opposition is driven by self-interest rather than facts, with claims that the reforms would eliminate rights or deny recovery—assertions that simply are not true.
The proposals can be broken into five key areas.
First, they establish a $100,000 cap on pain and suffering awards for individuals injured while committing a felony or driving under the influence. This is a reasonable measure. Individuals engaging in illegal and dangerous behavior should not receive large financial awards stemming from those actions.
Second, the reforms update New York’s comparative fault system. Under current law, a plaintiff who is mostly responsible for causing an accident can still recover damages. For example, someone found 75 percent at fault can still recover from a defendant who is only 25 percent responsible. That outcome defies basic fairness. The proposed change would bar recovery for plaintiffs found more than 50 percent at fault—a standard already used in most states, 35 to be exact, and is rarely marginally different. Fault is determined by a jury after hearing all the evidence, not by insurers.
Third, the reforms address New York’s joint and several liability rules. Currently, a defendant found just one percent at fault can be held responsible for the entire judgment, exposing personal and business assets far beyond their share of responsibility. The proposal would ensure that defendants less than 50 percent at fault are responsible only for their proportional share, restoring balance and fairness.
Fourth, the reforms make a modest adjustment to the definition of “serious injury.” Specifically, they would remove the “90 out of 180 days” standard tied to daily activity limitations. Other well-established categories—such as significant limitations to a body part or organ—remain intact. Claims that this change would eliminate recovery for legitimate injuries are misleading.
Fifth, the proposals would standardize the use of bifurcated trials, where liability and damages are determined separately. While encouraged under current court rules, this approach is not applied consistently across New York. Standardization would bring greater clarity and efficiency to the system.
At their core, these reforms respond to a system that is increasingly being taken advantage of. Fraud and abuse—from staged accidents to unnecessary medical treatments designed to inflate claims—have become too common. This behavior undermines the integrity of our civil justice system and drives up costs for everyone.
At the same time, these proposals preserve access to justice. New York’s no-fault system remains fully in place, ensuring that all individuals involved in accidents—regardless of fault—have coverage for medical expenses and lost wages up to $50,000. The idea that injured individuals would be left without recourse is simply incorrect.
The status quo is not working. Without reform, the costs of fraud and excessive litigation will continue to be passed on to New Yorkers and small businesses.
These proposals put fairness, accountability, and affordability first. They protect consumers, support small businesses, and reinforce a civil justice system that works as intended. The choice is clear, and the need for action is long overdue.
Joshua Hoffman is a partner at Hoffman Matlin & Monroy, LLP.