Supreme Court of New York, New York County
Plaintiff Raymond Lee, as administrator for the estate of the decedent, Jim Lee filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County alleging decedent was exposed to asbestos from his’s employment working around various products. Defendant, Crosby Valves, filed a motion for summary judgement to dismiss the claims against them.
A court must grant summary judgment if the movant establishes its claim “as a matter of law” and no “issue of fact” warranting trial remains. CPLR § 3212(b). “In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, the motion court should draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party and should not pass on issues of credibility.” Garcia v J.C. Duggan, Inc., 180 AD2d 579, 580 (1st Dep’t 1992), quoting Dauman Displays, Inc. v Masturzo, 168 AD2d 204, 205 (1st Dep’t 1990).
The court’s role centers on “issue-finding, [not] issue-determination.” Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 404 (1957), quoting Esteve v Abad, 271 AD 725, 727 (1st Dep’t 1947) (internal quotation marks omitted). In toxic tort cases about a defendant’s alleged failures to warn of a toxin’s dangers, the court must first decide whether the defendant has a legal duty to warn the plaintiff. Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. (Dummitt), 27 NY3d 765, 787 (2016). “[T]he manufacturer of a product has a duty to warn of the danger arising from the known and reasonably foreseeable use of its product in combination with a third-party product which, as a matter of design, mechanics or economic necessity, is necessary to enable the manufacturer’s product to function as intended.” Id. at 793.
When a defendant in a toxic tort case moves for summary judgment, the moving defendant must do more than “point to gaps in [the] opponent’s evidence”; it must “‘affirmatively demonstrate the merit” of its position. Koulermos v A.O. Smith Water Prods., 137 AD3d 575, 576 (1st Dep’t 2016), quoting Dalton v Educ. Testing Serv., 294 AD2d 462, 463 (2d Dep’t 2002); see also Dyer, 207 AD3d at 409 (noting that a summary judgment movant does “not meet its prima facie burden by merely pointing to gaps or deficits in [the] plaintiff’s case”); Reid v Georgia-Pac. Corp., 212 AD2d 462, 463 (1st Dep’t 1995) (denying summary judgment when the defendant “fail[ed] … to unequivocally establish that its product could not have contributed to the … plaintiff’s injury”).
In this matter, defendant moved to dismiss this action on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to establish (i) that decedent was exposed to any asbestos products manufactured by defendant or (ii) that defendant had a duty to warn decedent of asbestos products that, although not manufactured by defendant, were used jointly with defendant’s products. However, plaintiff referred to decedent’s testimony that, as part of his job, he removed asbestos insulation and flange gaskets attached to defendant’s valves. Plaintiff also claims, based on the prior testimony of defendant’s corporate representative, that defendant understood that asbestos products would be commonly used with its valves.
The court held that plaintiff has proffered sufficient evidence, including (i) of defendant’s awareness of the use of asbestos flange gaskets or insulation along with its valves and (ii) of decedent’s work with defendant’s valves, to raise issues of fact about the extent of Defendant’s involvement with asbestos flange gaskets and insulation. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was denied in its entirety.
Read the full case decision here.