New York Slip and Fall Accident Funding
State rules that shape pre-settlement funding for New York slip and fall claims. Pure comparative fault, a 3-year SOL, and the open-and-obvious duty-to-warn distinction explained.
Non-recourse funding is repaid only from a settlement or award. Independent capital providers set the terms.
Bills do not wait for your case.
Rent, medical bills and living costs keep arriving while a case moves through the court. An advance against a pending case can cover them and is repaid only if the case produces a recovery.
The New York rules that shape this claim
The rules below shape how a New York slip & fall accident funding claim is underwritten and how quickly it can move toward resolution.
Three years from the date of the fall for a negligence/premises-liability claim (CPLR § 214). New York applies the general personal-injury limitations period rather than a distinct premises-liability statute.
New York applies pure comparative negligence: a plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault but never eliminated (CPLR § 1411). New York courts distinguish between the duty to warn of a hazard and the duty to maintain property in a reasonably safe condition — an open and obvious condition can eliminate the narrower duty to warn, but does not automatically defeat a claim that the condition itself was unreasonably dangerous and should have been remedied (Tagle v. Jakob, 97 N.Y.2d 165 (2001); Westbrook v. WR Activities-Cabrera Markets, 5 A.D.3d 69 (1st Dep't 2004)). Whether a condition was truly open and obvious, and whether it was nonetheless dangerous, are generally fact questions for the jury rather than grounds for early dismissal.
No statutory cap on economic or non-economic damages in an ordinary premises-liability slip-and-fall case.
Pre-judgment interest is generally unavailable on unliquidated pain-and-suffering damages before verdict (CPLR § 5001(b)); post-judgment interest accrues at 9% per year (CPLR § 5004).
Proper in the county where a party resides or where the claim arose (CPLR § 503).
New York regulates consumer litigation funding under the Consumer Litigation Funding Act (Article 39-H), N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 899-ccc–899-mmm. Charges to the consumer litigation funding company are capped at 25% of the gross amount recovered on the claim — disclosed verbatim, in 12-pt bold, in the funding contract.
How New York regulates consumer legal funding
Reviewed September 17, 2026. Legal information, not legal advice.
How terms are set for New York plaintiffs
Rates and terms are set by the capital provider and written in the provider’s agreement before signing.
Because the open-and-obvious/duty-to-warn distinction is fact-intensive and frequently litigated through summary judgment, cases where the defendant raises that defense tend to take longer to resolve than cases turning on straightforward notice of a hidden hazard.
Does an "open and obvious" hazard defeat a New York slip-and-fall claim?
Not automatically. New York separates the duty to warn from the broader duty to maintain the property safely, so an obvious hazard can eliminate the former without eliminating the latter, meaning the claim can still proceed on the theory that the condition itself was unreasonably dangerous.
This distinction is frequently the subject of summary-judgment motions, and outcomes depend heavily on how the specific hazard is characterized by the court. A hazard that is both open and inherent to the property's ordinary use is treated differently than one that is visible but still avoidably dangerous to a typical visitor.
How does pure comparative fault affect underwriting in New York?
Because fault only reduces, and never eliminates, a plaintiff's recovery, a New York claim retains real value even where the plaintiff bears significant responsibility for not noticing a hazard, which differs meaningfully from the bar-based comparative-fault states elsewhere in this comparison.
The practical underwriting question in New York is sizing the likely fault percentage against the documented injury value, not assessing whether comparative fault will eliminate the claim outright. That makes the injury's severity and treatment history unusually important relative to the liability dispute itself.
Do commercial and residential premises get treated differently in New York?
Commercial property owners are generally held to routine inspection and maintenance practices that make constructive-notice evidence more developed and readily available than in most residential settings, though the underlying legal duty framework technically applies broadly to both commercial and residential property types alike.
A supermarket or retail defendant with documented inspection sweeps presents a more evidence-rich record early in the case than an individual homeowner typically does. This affects how quickly liability can be evaluated and how confidently a funding decision can be made at intake.
Slip & Fall Accident Funding questions in New York
New York gives an injured person three years from the date of the fall to file a negligence lawsuit under CPLR § 214. Claims against a New York City or state government entity carry a much shorter notice-of-claim deadline, typically 90 days, that is independent of the three-year filing period and must be satisfied separately or the claim can be lost entirely.
Not necessarily. New York distinguishes the duty to warn of a hazard from the duty to keep the property reasonably safe overall. An obvious condition can remove the duty to warn without eliminating the underlying claim that the condition should have been fixed, which is generally a question left for the jury rather than a basis for automatic dismissal at an early stage.
Yes. New York is a pure comparative-negligence state under CPLR § 1411, meaning your recovery is reduced by your percentage of fault but is never barred entirely, regardless of how much fault a jury ultimately assigns to you. This is one of the more plaintiff-favorable comparative-fault rules in the country.
Yes. New York regulates consumer litigation funding under the Consumer Litigation Funding Act (Article 39-H), N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 899-ccc–899-mmm. Signed 12/19/2025; effective approximately 6/19/2026. Charges to the consumer litigation funding company are capped at 25% of the gross amount recovered on the claim — disclosed verbatim, in 12-pt bold, in the funding contract. Disclosure and conduct rules: Plain-language contract disclosing the funded amount, maximum total amount assignable, and a payment schedule at 180-day intervals; 10-day right of rescission; written attorney acknowledgment; funder barred from influencing settlement, misleading advertising, or paying referral fees.
CPLR § 214 · CPLR § 1411 · Tagle v. Jakob, 97 N.Y.2d 165 (2001) · Westbrook v. WR Activities-Cabrera Markets, 5 A.D.3d 69 (1st Dep't 2004) · CPLR § 5001(b) · CPLR § 5004 · CPLR § 503 · N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 899-ccc–899-mmm
Reviewed September 17, 2026. Legal information, not legal advice.
Request funding for your case.
Pre-settlement funding is a non-recourse purchase of a portion of the proceeds of a pending legal claim — not a loan. If the case does not result in a recovery, nothing is owed. Rates, fees, and repayment terms are disclosed in full in the funding agreement, which the applicant’s attorney reviews before signing. Availability and terms vary by state.