Asbestos Case Tracker

Court: Supreme Court of New York, New York County

In this talc action, plaintiff Christina Thomas alleged she was exposed to asbestos from products manufactured by defendant Port Jervis Laboratories Inc., s/h/a Kolmar Laboratories, Inc.

Kolmar moved for summary judgment, arguing plaintiff had not established she was exposed to asbestos from a Kolmar product which caused her illness. Defendant further argued that it manufactured the products per the specifications of Johnson & Johnson. 

Plaintiff opposed Kolmar’s motion, citing defendant’s concession that they manufactured the product …

Court: Supreme Court of New York, New York County

In this asbestos action, decedent Anthony Morale alleged he was exposed to asbestos from boilers manufactured by defendant Fulton Boiler Works. Fulton moved for summary judgment, arguing it could not have caused or contributed to plaintiff’s injury. In support, Fulton proffered a corporate representative affidavit “to indicate that Fulton boilers did not require the type of servicing/assembly noted in [Morale’s] testimony and were not sold for use in the environments of Morale’s exposure.” Plaintiff opposed Fulton’s …

Court: Supreme Court of New York, New York County

Defendant Milton Roy LLC filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to identify Milton Roy as a manufacturer of any asbestos-containing products to which he was exposed during his employment with Con Edison between the 1970s and 1990s. In support of its motion, Milton Roy provided an affidavit from its corporate representative, which confirmed that none of the pumps at the plaintiff’s jobsites utilized asbestos-containing gaskets or other components.

In …

Court: Supreme Court of New York, New York County

Defendant Campbell Hausfeld LLC filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that no Campbell product had been identified in connection with the plaintiff’s lung cancer. In support of its motion, Campbell pointed out the plaintiff’s history of cigarette smoking, and reiterated that the plaintiff could not prove exposure to asbestos from gasket replacements on its air compressors. In addition, Campbell asserted that the gaskets described by the plaintiff would not have contained asbestos.

In …