Court: Supreme Court of New York, Albany County
Plaintiff Warren Stouch brought this asbestos action in February 2020, claiming he was exposed to asbestos at his jobs, including through the use and wear of asbestos containing gloves allegedly manufactured by Magid Glove.
Discovery was exchanged and, importantly, Mr. Stouch was deposed. He testified he recalled wearing and cleaning asbestos containing kitchen gloves, which created dust, at two jobs — from 1957-1959 and from 1981-1989. He testified the gloves were made by Magid based on the logo on the glove.
Defendant Magid Glove moved for summary judgment in February 2021. Plaintiff opposed this motion. Trial was set for March 2021 but was adjourned due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Plaintiff Stouch died in July 2021 from his disease and his estate was substituted in. Thereafter, the parties attempted to reach a compromise. They were unable to do so, and the motion was deemed fully submitted as of August 2024.
Magid Glove submitted as part of its motion papers an affidavit from corporate representative, Harvey Cohen. In that affidavit, Cohen averred that even though Magid did distribute some asbestos containing gloves, the ones with asbestos did not bear Magid’s trade name or logo. Rather, only the non-asbestos gloves had the name Magid on them, or the Magid logo. Using that information, defendant Magid pointed to the plaintiff’s testimony, stating he believed the gloves he wore were Magid because the name was on the glove.
The court noted that the burden was on the defendant to affirmatively prove, as a matter of law, that there was no causation (Dyer v. Amchem Prods. Inc.). Judge Corcoran stated the plaintiff’s opposition raised a question of material fact about the presence of defendant’s products at the workplaces, from which Magid’s liability could be reasonably inferred. The court further stated that where there is a conflict between the plaintiff’s testimony and the conclusory claim in a defendant’s affidavit, then that conflict cannot be resolved as a matter of law. Instead, it’s a question of fact for the jury.
Therefore the court denied Magid’s motion for summary judgment.
Read the full decision here.