CHANGES TO NEW YORK STATE LAWS FOR THOSE INJURED IN ACCIDENTS – PART 2 OF 3

James L. Maswick and Elliot J. Vanier • June 3, 2026

On May 27, 2026, New York State Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law significant amendments which impact the ability of parties injured in automobile accidents to recover money damages. 


Three major changes have gone into effect, including the elimination of an injury category to qualify for non-economic damages, a cap to a plaintiff’s recovery who is convicted of certain crimes out of the accident, and changes to a plaintiff’s right to recovery where plaintiff holds the majority at fault.


These changes are being explained in a series of three blog posts.


This second post reviews the newly placed cap on non-economic recovery for a plaintiff convicted of certain offenses.


$100,000.00 Cap on Non-Economic Damages for Certain At-Fault Plaintiffs


The law imposes a limited $100,000.00 maximum ability to recover on pain-and-suffering damages for certain plaintiffs whose conduct contributed to the accident. The cap applies when a plaintiff:


  • Was operating an uninsured vehicle that he or she was responsible for insuring, unless the lapse in coverage lasted fewer than 30 days;
  • Was operating a vehicle while impaired and is subsequently convicted of the impairment-related offense; or
  • Was operating a vehicle during the commission of a felony, or while fleeing immediately from the commission of a felony, and is subsequently convicted of that felony.

       

The cap applies only to claims for non-economic damages and does not affect wrongful death actions. It is important that your attorney either has experience in criminal law or works closely with your criminal attorney if you are injured in a motor vehicle accident and charged with a DWI or a felony arising from the same accident.


There may be limited circumstances in which this issue arises, but if you are injured in a motor vehicle accident, it is important you contact an experienced law firm to educate you on your rights to recovery.


Part 3 to come in this series.

The view from the top of Whiteface Mountain showing the entirety of Lake Placid and mountains.
By Flink Maswick Law PLLC • October 9, 2026
The offices of Flink Maswick Law will be closed on October 12, 2026 for the federal holiday.
Attorney and Partner Molly S Hann of Flink Maswick Law in Lake Placid and Tupper Lake NY
By Flink Maswick Law • September 30, 2026
Attorney Molly Hann shares estate planning strategies with St. Lawrence University alumni to protect family, preserve wealth, and support charitable giving.
Flink Maswick Law team standing in front of Mirror Lake in Lake Placid NY.
By Flink Maswick Law • September 17, 2026
Apply for a full-time Receptionist/Administrative Assistant position at Flink Maswick Law PLLC in Lake Placid, NY. Competitive pay and benefits.
Flag waving with the sky in the background and sun set. Text states
By Flink Maswick Law PLLC • September 11, 2026
A post from Flink Maswick Law in remembrance of 9/11, 25 years later.
Attorneys Ed Flink and Elliot Vanier sitting at a table reviewing documents.
By Flink Maswick Law • September 10, 2026
Attorneys Ed Flink and Elliot Vanier secured a $110,000 settlement for a Capital District client injured as a passenger in a two-car crash.
American Flag waving with text Happy Labor Day and stars.
By Flink Maswick Law PLLC • September 5, 2026
Happy Labor Day Post from Flink Maswick Law with offices in Lake Placid NY, Tupper Lake NY, and Albany NY.
Flink Maswick Law PLLC attorneys, staff, and families at The Wild Center in Tupper Lake.
By Flink Maswick Law PLLC • August 19, 2026
Flink Maswick Law PLLC attorneys, staff, and families enjoyed a summer fun day visiting The Wild Center and its famous trolls in Tupper Lake, NY.
Flink Maswick Law PLLC  attorneys and staff at Mirror Lake in Lake Placid NY
August 12, 2026
Flink Maswick Law PLLC in Lake Placid and Tupper Lake, will close at 11:30 a.m. on Friday, August 14, 2026, for a firm summer fun day and will reopen Monday, August 17 at 8:30 a.m.
Molly Hann, Jill Reynolds (3rd Yar law student), and James Maswick
By Flink Maswick Law • July 17, 2026
The attorneys of Flink Maswick Law PLLC were pleased to host Jill Reynolds, a rising third-year law student at Vermont Law School, this past week. Jill had the opportunity to attend both criminal and civil-based proceedings in a variety of courts, conduct legal research to support Flink Maswick attorneys in some litigated matters, attend client meetings, and sit in and participate on strategy phone calls with clients as well. Jill spent the majority of time with both attorneys Molly S. Hann and James L. Maswick this past week and also met with attorney Edward B. Flink. We greatly enjoyed having Jill and wish them an excellent upcoming third year at Vermont Law! Flink Maswick Law participated in the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department's Rural Pathways Program, which is designed to place law students in rural counties during the summer break from school. The program allows students to observe rural law practice, as well as gain hands-on experience in different areas of law in rural settings. One of the goals of the program is to educate law students about opportunities for law students in legal practice in less populated areas.
James Maswick Attorney and Partner at Flink Maswick Law
By Flink Maswick Law PLLC • July 14, 2026
James L. Maswick, an attorney with Flink Maswick Law PLLC, recently was victorious in a New York State Department of Motor Vehicles Refusal Hearing on behalf of a client. Refusal Hearings typically occur when a motorist is arrested and alleged to have been operating their motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and allegedly refuses to provide a chemical test to the police upon proper request. This chemical test can take the form of a breath test, urine test, blood test, and/or a saliva test. In this situation, the client was alleged to have been operating a motor vehicle in an intoxicated condition and allegedly failed to provide a chemical test upon request of the arresting officers. However, Maswick and the client were successful, after three separate refusal hearing sessions, in eliciting testimony on cross-examination from one of the arresting officers, which indicated that the allegations made in the notifications filed with the Department of Motor Vehicles were inaccurate and impossible in light of the arresting officer's own testimony. Upon the start of the third DMV Refusal Hearing session on this matter, the Administrative Law Judge dismissed the case on the motion Mr. Maswick and his client made seeking dismissal of the matter, granting their motion.  If you find yourself in a similar situation, please do not hesitate to contact our firm at (518) 523-2441.
Show More