New York Court of Appeals: Asbestos Cases

Our case-law library holds 15 asbestos decisions from the New York Court of Appeals (1981–2022). Each links to our summary and the full opinion.

• State: New York
• Kind of court: State supreme court

Decisions

• Nemeth v. Brenntag N. Am. (2022). The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and dismissed the complaint against Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc., holding that the plaintiff's causation proof was legally insufficient, so the defendant won and the plaintiff lost the jury verdict.
• New York City Asbestos Litig (2019). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order upholding denial of Chevron's summary judgment motion based on a 1997 release, because Chevron had not shown as a matter of law that the release barred the mesothelioma claims of the Souths; the plaintiffs prevailed over Chevron.
• Juni v. Ford Motor Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2018). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, leaving in place the setting aside of the jury verdict against Ford Motor Company, so plaintiff Mary Juni lost and Ford won judgment as a matter of law.
• Finerty v. Abex Corp. (2016). The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's order and granted Ford Motor Company's (Ford USA) motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it, ruling against plaintiffs Finerty.
• Konstantin v. Tishman Liquidating Corp. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (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.
• Mtr OF Diegelman v. City (2016). The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's order, which had denied the Diegelmans leave to serve a late notice of claim on the City of Buffalo, and remitted the matter for consideration of the remaining issues; the claimants prevailed over the City.
• Mtr OF Nyc Asbestos Litig. (2016). The Court of Appeals affirmed both Appellate Division orders, leaving in place the plaintiffs' jury verdicts against Crane Co. in the Dummitt and Suttner mesothelioma cases.
• Mtr OF Nyc Asbestos Litig. (2014). The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's order, holding the Andruckis' personal injury notice of claim was sufficient for the wrongful death and survivorship claims against the Port Authority, and remitted the case to the Appellate Division for undecided issues.
• Usf&g Co. v. American Re-Ins. (2013). The Court of Appeals modified the Appellate Division's order, denying USF&G summary judgment on whether it reasonably allocated nothing to the bad faith claims and whether lung cancer and other claims were reasonably valued, and otherwise affirmed summary judgment for USF&G against the reinsurers.
• Nostrom v. AW Chesterton Co. (2010). The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Judith Nostrom's Labor Law § 241 (6) claim against the owners (Orange & Rockland, Central Hudson) and the general contractor (Sequoia Ventures), so the defendants won and the plaintiff lost.
• Reynolds v. Garlock Sealing Technologies (Mtr OF Eighth Jud. Dist. Asbestos Litigation) (2007). The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's order affirming the judgment and ordered a new trial, ruling for Garlock Sealing Technologies against plaintiffs Reynolds because the undisclosed high-low agreement with Niagara denied Garlock a fair trial.
• Holdampf v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Matter of Nyc Asbestos Litig) (2005). The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, reinstated Supreme Court's summary judgment for the Port Authority, and held the Port Authority owed no duty of care to the wife of its employee, so the Holdampfs lost.
• Maltese v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (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.
• Consorti v. Owens Corning (1995). The New York Court of Appeals answered the Second Circuit's certified question in the negative, so Frances Consorti had no loss of consortium claim against Owens-Corning, which prevailed on that question.
• Matter of Steinhardt v. JohnsManville Corp. (1981). The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division orders, so the asbestos manufacturers and suppliers won and the plaintiffs' claims stayed barred by the statute of limitations.