Category: New York

Court: Supreme Court of New York, New York County

In this asbestos action, defendant Crosby moved for summary judgment on duty to warn and causation grounds. Plaintiff Joseph Deroy opposed the motion.

Ultimately, the court denied the motion. The court first noted that “summary judgment is a drastic remedy and should only be granted if the moving party has sufficiently established that it is warranted as a matter of law.” In addition, “summary judgment is rarely granted in negligence actions unless there is no conflict at …

Court: Supreme Court of New York, New York County

In this asbestos action, defendant Western Auto moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for summary judgment. Plaintiff Winfield Frederick opposed both motions. Ultimately, the court denied both motions.

With regard to the motion for personal jurisdiction, the court set forth that the defendant “did not even allege that it does not have contacts with the State of New York, and it is undisputed that defendant Western placed products into the stream of commerce.” …

Court: Supreme Court of New York, New York County

In this asbestos action, defendant Goodyear moved for summary judgment, arguing that asbestos exposure from its sheet gaskets could not have caused plaintiff Robert Waldon’s lung cancer. In support, Goodyear submitted the expert reports of CIH John Spencer and Dr. Robert Sussman. In opposition, plaintiff submitted its own expert reports from CIH Kenneth Garza and Dr. Mark Ginsburg.

Ultimately, the court denied the motion. The court first noted that “summary judgment is a drastic remedy and …

Court: Supreme Court of New York, New York County

Defendant Burnham LLC filed motions for partial summary judgment with respect to punitive damages in two actions, DeRoy and Giuliano, on the basis that (1) asbestos exposure from Burnham boilers would fall below TLV or PEL/OSHA limits, and (2) Burnham’s lack of workers’ compensation claims for asbestos-related disease.

The court rejected both arguments, noting that the TLV/OSHA standards “have little bearing on plaintiff’s unequivocal and consistent testimony” regarding his exposure to asbestos from work involving …

Court: Supreme Court of New York, New York County

Defendant Perkins Engines Inc. filed motions for summary judgment in two actions, Frederick and Nankervis.

In Frederick, Perkins filed its motion based upon a lack of product identification and causation. In support of the product identification claim, Perkins relies upon the expert report of Certified Industrial Hygienist, Catherine E. Simmons, which states that “Perkins gaskets are associated only with Perkins diesel engines” and that she is “unaware that [Perkins] manufactured or supplied friction products …

Court: Supreme Court of New York, New York County (NYCAL)

In this asbestos action, defendant SPX Cooling Technologies Inc., individually and as successor to Marley Cooling Technologies Inc., moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiffs failed to establish causation, and that defendant established a prima facie case for a lack thereof under Nemeth.

In its decision denying the motion, the court noted that Marley misstated plaintiff’s burden, as the standard set forth in Nemeth “represent[ed] an extraordinary post-trial remedy to set aside a jury …

Court: Supreme Court of New York, New York County (NYCAL)

In this asbestos action, defendant Crosby Valve LLC moved to dismiss the action, alleging that plaintiff, John Holland was not exposed to asbestos from any Crosby product. In opposition, plaintiffs highlighted Holland’s deposition testimony, which identified Crosby as a manufacturer. Plaintiffs also pointed to the purported lack of personal knowledge in Crosby’s supporting affidavit and the testimony of Crosby’s corporate affidavit, which confirmed asbestos-containing Crosby products.

Summary judgment motions are denied if the opposing party …