Asbestos Cases A–Z: M

385 decisions whose name begins with M.

• Matter of Midland Insurance Company (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2000). The court modified the Supreme Court order: coverage is triggered by inhalation exposure (first or continued) but not by exposure "in residence"; the Highlands $17.5 million reduction was vacated and other "Other Insurance" declarations were changed in part for the Superintendent and in part for LAQ; as modified, affirmed.
• Matter of Miller (New York Surrogate's Court, Erie, 2014). The Surrogate's Court denied the executrix's petition to declare missing daughter Constance dead, and approved the settlement allocation (90% conscious pain and suffering, 10% wrongful death) but split the wrongful death share equally between Miller and Barbara Streif, giving nothing to Constance.
• Matter of Miller v. Mo Maier Ltd. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 3rd Dept., 2022). The Appellate Division affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's denial of the employer Mo Maier Ltd. and its carrier Travelers' applications to reopen the claim, so Travelers remained the liable carrier and the claimant's side prevailed.
• Matter of Miller v. Mo Maier Ltd. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 3rd Dept., 2019). The Appellate Division affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's refusal to consider Travelers' application for review because it used an outdated form, so Travelers and Mo Maier Ltd. lost.
• Matter of Murphy-Clagett v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (New York Supreme Court, 2018). The court quashed Peerless Industries' trial subpoena for a live witness from settled non-party Weil-McLain, denied Weil-McLain's request for costs, and allowed Peerless to use Weil-McLain's interrogatories and deposition at trial under the CMO.
• Matter of New York Asbestos Litig. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2020). The appellate court affirmed the denial of Mario & DiBono Plastering Co.'s motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiffs' claims against it continue.
• Maffei v. Burnham (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2025). The First Department affirmed the jury-verdict judgment for plaintiffs Romeo and Rosa Maffei against Burnham LLC, including compensatory, consortium and punitive awards, and dismissed the appeal from the post-trial order as subsumed in the judgment.
• McWilliams v. Jenkins Bros. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2024). The First Department affirmed the denial of Jenkins Bros.' motion for JNOV, a new trial, or remittitur, leaving plaintiff McWilliams' $13,000,000 past and $10,000,000 future pain and suffering verdict intact.
• Olson v. Johnson & Johnson (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2022). The First Department reversed the judgment for plaintiffs against Johnson & Johnson and directed entry of judgment for J&J, because plaintiffs' expert proof of causation was legally insufficient; the appeal from the damages-reduction order was dismissed as subsumed.
• Hildebrand v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2021). The First Department affirmed the denial of the Port Authority's summary judgment motion on the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, so plaintiff Seval Morgan's claims against the Port Authority continued.
• Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2019). The Appellate Division reversed the judgment entered on a jury verdict for plaintiff, granted Whittaker Clark & Daniels' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and dismissed the complaint against it.
• Miller v. Hennessy Indus. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2017). The First Department affirmed the judgment entered after a jury trial awarding plaintiff Walter Miller $5 million for past and $4 million for future pain and suffering against Hennessy Industries, which lost its appeal.
• South v. Chevron Corp. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2017). The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Texaco's summary judgment motion, so the widow's Jones Act mesothelioma claims against Texaco (sued as Chevron's alleged predecessor) continued; Texaco lost, with one justice dissenting.
• Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. (New York Supreme Court, 2017). The Coordinating Judge issued a case management order setting procedures for all NYCAL asbestos personal injury and wrongful death cases, superseding earlier orders effective July 20, 2017; no party won or lost.
• Trumbull v. American Biltrite (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, 2017). The court granted American Biltrite (Amtico)'s motion and dismissed plaintiffs Richard and Margaret Trumbull's claims against it for lack of general and specific personal jurisdiction.
• Fogel v. American Int'l Indus. for Clubman (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, 2017). The court granted the motions of defendants Unilever (Brut) and Whittaker Clark & Daniels, reversed the Special Master's decision placing plaintiff in the in extremis cluster, and ordered the case moved to the next FIFO cluster.
• Acosta v. Avocet Enterprises (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, 2016). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate in part, ordering joint trials of Acosta and Smith (Group 1) and of Clark, Guerra and Votta (Group 2), and refusing to consolidate Battistoni's case with the others, over the defendants' objections.
• Konstantin v. Tishman Liquidating Corp. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Court of Appeals, 2016). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, which upheld the judgment for plaintiff Konstantin against Tishman Liquidating Corporation, and held TLC had not preserved or recorded its joint-trial challenge and could not challenge the damages as excessive.
• Feinberg v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, 2016). The trial court denied Colgate-Palmolive's motion for summary judgment in its entirety, so the Feinbergs' claims over Arlene Feinberg's mesothelioma go forward.
• Cicio v. American Biltrite (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, 2016). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the Cicio, Keeny and Matuk mesothelioma cases for a joint trial, so American Biltrite and Kaiser Gypsum prevailed and the cases will be tried individually.
• Koulermos v. O'Connor Constructors (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, 2016). The court denied O'Connor Constructors' motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff Koulermos's claims and all cross-claims, because O'Connor only pointed to gaps in plaintiff's proof and offered no affirmative evidence.
• Miller v. Hennessy Indus. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, 2016). The court denied Ammco's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and upheld the liability findings for plaintiff Walter Miller, but vacated the $25 million pain and suffering award and ordered a new damages trial unless plaintiff stipulated to a reduced award.
• DePriest v. Crane Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, 2016). The trial court denied Crane Co.'s in limine motion to preclude plaintiffs' medical experts from giving specific causation testimony and denied its request for a Frye hearing, so plaintiffs may offer the testimony.
• Quinlan v. Marine Transport Lines (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, 2015). The court granted Marine Transport Lines' motion to dismiss as time-barred, refusing equitable tolling, and severed Marine and dismissed the complaint against it; the Quinlan estate plaintiffs lost.
• Galasso v. BF Goodrich (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, 2015). The trial court denied BF Goodrich's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Galassos' complaint and all claims and cross-claims against it, so plaintiffs prevailed on the motion.
• Best v. The William Powell Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, 2015). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the Best/Nefsey and Rocovich/Weil asbestos cases for joint trial, so the opposing defendants prevailed.
• Scainetti v. BW/IP (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, 2015). The trial court denied BW/IP's motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of plaintiff Jack Scainetti's claims, so the claims against BW/IP go forward.
• Juni v. Ford Motor Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, 2015). The court granted Ford Motor Company's post-trial motion, set aside the jury verdict for plaintiffs Arthur and Mary Juni in its entirety, and directed judgment for Ford.
• Lefrak v. American Biltrite (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, 2015). The court denied defendant American Biltrite's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiff Richard Lefrak's claims against it continue.
• Andrucki v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2015). On remittitur from the Court of Appeals, the First Department affirmed the $2,500,000 judgment for plaintiffs against the Port Authority, which had defaulted by not appearing at trial, without an inquest on damages.
• Berensmann v. Georgia-Pacific (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2014). The appellate court dismissed the claims about Georgia-Pacific's wallboards because it never made asbestos wallboard, but otherwise affirmed the denial of Georgia-Pacific's summary judgment motion, so plaintiffs' joint compound claims proceed.
• Scainetti v. The Fairbanks Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, 2014). The court denied The Fairbanks Company's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiffs' claims against Fairbanks continue.
• Feuerman v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, 2014). The court granted plaintiffs' motion for joint trials in part, ordering the four mesothelioma cases tried together, the three lung cancer cases tried together separately, and the Bova case tried individually.
• Carmody v. DAP (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, 2014). The court partly granted plaintiffs' motion to quash defendant DAP's subpoena to the Manville Trust, ordering the Trust to produce documents to the court for in camera review, and otherwise denied the motion, so DAP largely prevailed.
• Konstantin v. Tishman Liquidating Corp. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2014). The Appellate Division affirmed both jury-verdict judgments for the plaintiffs (Konstantin against Tishman Liquidating Corporation, Dummitt against Crane Co.) and dismissed the appeal from the order denying Crane's post-trial motion as subsumed in the judgment appeal; one justice, joined by another, dissented in part as to Dummitt.
• Lamberty v. Cleaver Brooks (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, 2014). The court denied defendant Cleaver Brooks's request to adjourn the joint trial and also denied plaintiffs' cross-motion to strike Cleaver Brooks's 18th affirmative defense and to preclude its expert witnesses, because both sides had missed discovery deadlines.
• Fersch v. Volkswagen Group of America (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2013). The First Department affirmed the trial court's order consolidating the Juni, Fersch and Middleton cases for trial, ruling against Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., which had appealed.
• Bernard v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, 2013). After a Frye hearing, the court granted Colgate-Palmolive's motion to preclude plaintiffs' testing expert, Dr. Millette, from opining that any talc powder sample he tested contained asbestiform contaminants.
• Peraica v. Crane Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, 2013). The court denied Crane Co.'s motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and to set aside the verdict, granted remittitur reducing the pain and suffering award from $35 million to $18 million (or a new trial on damages), and denied Crane's request for post-verdict settlement discovery.
• Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2013). The First Department reversed the judgment awarding plaintiffs damages against the Port Authority, vacated it, denied plaintiffs' default judgment motion, and granted the Port Authority's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2012). The First Department affirmed the trial court's order consolidating the three plaintiffs' actions against Colgate-Palmolive for a joint trial, rejecting Colgate-Palmolive's appeal.
• Bernard v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, 2012). The court granted defendant Colgate-Palmolive's motion for open commissions to depose out-of-state non-party witnesses Dr. Jian-Jun Wei and Norma Cuffe, over the plaintiffs' opposition, with depositions to be completed by March 30, 2012.
• Chinea v. Keystone Shipping (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, 2011). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion and ordered two joint trial groups of four asbestos plaintiffs each, over the defendants' joint opposition, with group 1 to begin jury selection on October 3, 2011.
• Conti v. Crane Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, 2011). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion and consolidated eight asbestos cases for a joint trial over the defendants' joint opposition.
• McDermott v. Mario & DiBono Plastering Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, 2010). The court granted the McDermott plaintiffs' motion to quash defendant Mario & DiBono Plastering's subpoena and notice to depose non-party witness Michael Ciron, because the defendant had not shown the deposition was necessary.
• Horn v. Treadwell Corp. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, 2010). The court granted Treadwell's summary judgment motion only for exposure during Mr. Horn's employment with Treadwell (barred by workers' compensation exclusivity) and denied it for exposure before that employment, so the plaintiff partly prevailed.
• Dietz v. Fulton Boilerworks (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, 2010). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion in part, consolidating the Dietz and Pearce actions for a joint trial against the remaining defendants; the Cole and Dosch actions had settled.
• Batista v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Supreme Court, 2010). The court granted plaintiffs' motion for a joint trial in part, joining five mesothelioma cases for one trial and two lung cancer cases for a later trial over defendants' objections, and stayed the Link case until a personal representative is substituted for the deceased plaintiff.
• Maltese v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (New York Court of Appeals, 1997). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division, upholding the trial court's setting aside of the jury's findings of reckless disregard and punitive damages against Westinghouse, so the plaintiffs lost on those issues.
• Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 1993). The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's rulings: it upheld the preclusion of the defendant's relitigation of a point decided in prior litigation, the five additurs, and the exclusion of evidence about the cause of Sutton's death, so the defendant lost.