Category: New York

In this case, the plaintiff, Mark Denison, claimed exposure to asbestos from numerous products while working at his father’s hardware store from 1964-65 to 1969, Dunkirk Radiator from 1972 to 1987, and from his own automotive repair business from 1980 to the early 1990s.  Defendants Bird, Inc., Euclid-Hitachi Heavy Equipment, Inc., F.E. Myers, Oshkosh Corporation, and WT/HRC Corporation all moved for summary judgment.

In its ruling, the court highlighted that none of the moving defendants were identified in the plaintiffs’ answers to interrogatories. The court …

In Holzworth v. Alfa Laval, et al. 12-CV-06088 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2016), Southern District of New York Judge John Keenan granted defendant Ingersoll-Rand’s summary judgment motion arising out of the plaintiff’s alleged exposure to asbestos aboard the U.S.S. Sheldrake. The plaintiff’s decedent had testified that he was exposed to pumps aboard the ship as a bystander and by cleaning them. He did not specifically describe their pumps’ composition, but claimed that he scraped asbestos-containing packing from the jackets. He further testified that many of the …

In this NYCAL case, it is alleged that the decedent, Warren Taveniere, was exposed to asbestos while working aboard several vessels as a Merchant Marine for Moore McCormack Lines from 1953 to 1955. The plaintiff’s interrogatory responses included Aurora Pump Company and at his deposition, the decedent testified that he used asbestos-containing gaskets and packing on Aurora pumps. After four hours the deposition was adjourned due to the decedent’s failing health and Aurora’s counsel had not yet had the opportunity to question him. The decedent’s …

The plaintiff developed mesothelioma and asserted asbestos exposure to valves from Fisher Controls International LLC through his work in various states, including New York.  Fisher moved for summary judgment and dismissal of various counts if its summary judgment was denied. The court denied the summary judgment, but granted dismissal of certain counts because these were unopposed.

First, Fisher argued that the New York court lacked both general and specific jurisdiction, because it only learned of the plaintiff’s nine-month occupational history in New York when plaintiff …