Motions for Summary Judgment on Causation Issues Denied as Issues of Fact Exist

Supreme Court of New York, New York County

In this asbestos action, the decedent, Donald Avakian, was diagnosed with lung cancer in August 2017 and subsequently passed away in June 2019. The decedent contended that he worked with asbestos-containing products throughout his career, including friction products and floor tiles.

Two defendants moved for summary judgment. They argued that the plaintiff cannot establish general or specific causation against them. Specifically, the floor tile defendant set forth that “plaintiff has not offered any scientific evidence to prove …

Continue Reading

Brake and Clutch Manufacturer’s Motion for Summary Judgment Denied

Supreme Court of New York, Nassau County, April 12, 2021

Plaintiff William Stodoloski worked as an auto mechanic from 1965 to 1969 and from 1971 to 1978.  The plaintiff testified that as a mechanic he performed all aspects of car repair including removing and replacing the defendant’s brakes and clutches. He filed an asbestos lawsuit on April 5, 2019 alleging his work as an auto mechanic caused him to suffer from lung cancer. The case was certified ready for trial on January 23, 2020 and …

Continue Reading

Plaintiffs’ Federal Court Action Time-Barred After Choice of Law Analysis

U.S. District Court for the Western District Court of New York, April 6, 2021

In this asbestos action, plaintiffs John and Joyce Castro commenced this lawsuit against several talc defendants in February 2019. As per their interrogatory responses, the plaintiff was diagnosed with mesothelioma on February 29, 2016. As to defendant Revlon, the plaintiff’s alleged indirect exposure to one of Revlon’s talcum powder products occurred only in Virginia.

Revlon filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs’ claims are time-barred under New York …

Continue Reading

Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Granted for Boiler Manufacturer

Supreme Court of New York, New York County, March 25, 2021

Defendant Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. filed this instant motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(8) on the grounds that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over them. This lawsuit stems from plaintiff Darrell Nelson’s diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma, which plaintiffs allege resulted from Mr. Nelson’s exposure to asbestos from his work as a maintenance worker and boiler operator for the Red Wing School District in Red Wing, Minnesota from 1977 to 1997. The …

Continue Reading

Signed Unopposed Summary Judgment Motions and Orders Vacated in NYCAL Due to Law Office Failure

Supreme Court of New York, New York County, March 15, 2021

In this asbestos action, the plaintiff’s counsel signed two unopposed summary judgment motions and orders submitted by counsel for Nash Engineering and Atwood & Morrill, respectively. The plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to vacate the orders pursuant to NY CPLR § 5015(a)(1), and defense counsel opposed the motions. Ultimately, Justice Silvera granted the plaintiff’s motion to vacate both orders.

Under NY CPLR § 5015(a)(1), a motion to vacate a default judgment or order can …

Continue Reading

Summary Judgment Granted to Ceramic Manufacturer Based on Asset Purchase Agreement

Supreme Court of New York, New York County, March 10, 2021

Defendant Gare Incorporated filed this instant motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212. The plaintiffs allege that Lorraine Berger’s (the decedent) June 22, 2018 diagnosis of mesothelioma was causally connected to her asbestos exposure from Gare asbestos-containing products. Gare’s motion contends that Gare has no liability for claims or litigation based on events occurring before July 21, 1983.

Here, Gare avers that it cannot be held liable for the decedent’s exposure to Gare products …

Continue Reading

Plaintiff Allowed to Proceed with Jurisdictional Discovery as Door Manufacturer’s Motion to Dismiss Denied

Supreme Court of New York, New York County, February 16, 2021

In this action, plaintiff James Witte alleged asbestos exposure from supervising the installation of fire doors manufactured by T.M. Cobb Company in Manhattan. Cobb moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint based on lack of personal jurisdiction. Cobb argued that the court did not have personal jurisdiction over them as they were incorporated in and have their principal place of business in California. Further, Cobb’s manufacturing and distribution facilities are located in four California cities. …

Continue Reading

Court Grants MSJ as Boiler Defendant Establishes Product Did Not Contain Asbestos

Supreme Court of New York, New York County

Defendant Cleaver-Brooks, Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment contending plaintiff John B. Daly, Jr. failed to produce any evidence that he was exposed to asbestos as a result of work on or in the proximity of products manufactured by Cleaver. The plaintiff alleges his mesothelioma diagnosis was caused by his exposure to asbestos while working as a steamfitter at Indian Point Power Plant in New York. The plaintiff testified to working around boilers that were manufactured …

Continue Reading

Partial Summary Judgment Granted to Glove Manufacturer Based on Acquisition Agreement

Supreme Court of New York, New York County

Defendant CSC Scientific Company, Inc. filed the present motion for summary judgment arguing that the plaintiffs have failed to identify a CSC product as a source of decedent’s asbestos exposure over a period from 1976 to 1979 or at any other time. By way of background, this matter arises from decedent Michael Love’s diagnosis of mesothelioma on July 31, 2018, which led to his death on November 9, 2019.

CSC argued that the absence of evidence of …

Continue Reading

Gasket Manufacturer Denied Summary Judgment in NYCAL

Supreme Court of New York, New York County

In this NYCAL action, plaintiff Lorraine Sprague alleges take-home exposure to asbestos from laundering her husband’s clothing while he worked as an oiler/wiper and tugboat/marine engineer from the early 1960s until 1987. Following two fact witness depositions and submission of expert reports, defendant Fel-Pro moved for summary judgment. Relying on Cawein, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff failed to produce evidence of specific identification of Fel-Pro products in her husband’s area of exposure, and as such, …

Continue Reading