New York Supreme Court: Asbestos Cases

Our case-law library holds 493 asbestos decisions from the New York Supreme Court (1984–2025). Each links to our summary and the full opinion.

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

Decisions

• Theophil v. AO Smith Water Prods. CO (2022). The court denied Arconic/ALCOA's motion for summary judgment against plaintiff William Theophil because fact questions remained on his exposure and on ALCOA's control over the fireproofing spray.
• Theophil v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (2022). The court denied defendant Mario & DiBono Plastering Co.'s motion for summary judgment, so plaintiff William Theophil's claims against it continue.
• Theophil v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (2022). The court denied defendant O'Connor Constructors, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, so plaintiff William Theophil's claims against O'Connor continue.
• Unger v. AW Chesterton Co. (2022). The court denied the Watts defendants' motion to apply New Hampshire law, so plaintiffs Edward and Lisa Unger prevailed on the choice-of-law question and New York law will apply.
• Unger v. AW Chesterton Co. (2022). The court denied the Watts defendants' motion for summary judgment and partly granted plaintiff Edward Unger's cross-motion for sanctions, with conditional preclusion and $10,000 in costs and fees against each of Watts Water Technologies, Watts Regulator Co. and their law firm.
• Viglietta v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd. (Erie, 2022). The court denied defendant Hedman Resources Limited's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial, leaving the plaintiffs' jury verdict undisturbed.
• Wagner v. Aerco Intl., Inc. (2022). The trial court denied U.S. Steel's motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, so plaintiff Gerald Wagner's mesothelioma case stays in New York County.
• Zicklin v. Bergdorf Goodman Inc. (2022). The trial court denied Colgate-Palmolive's motion for summary judgment because conflicting expert opinions on general and specific causation raised fact issues; the plaintiff prevailed on the motion.
• Backer v. Abb, Inc. (2021). The court granted plaintiff's motion for joint trials of Backer with Unger, and of Katechis with McGibbon and McLaughlin, over the defendants' opposition.
• Berger v. Aerco Intl., Inc. (2021). The court denied Vanderbilt Minerals' motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of all claims for lack of causation, but granted partial summary judgment dismissing claims relating to AMACO products under the bulk supplier doctrine.
• Berger v. Aerco Intl., Inc. (2021). The trial court granted defendant Gare Incorporated's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims against Gare, because Gare did not assume the liabilities of its predecessor, Old Gare.
• Camiolo v. American Biltrite Inc. (2021). The trial court denied Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company's motion for summary judgment, finding plaintiffs raised fact issues on whether decedent was exposed to asbestos from Goodyear floor tiles.
• Esposito v. Abb, Inc. (2021). The trial court denied defendant William Powell Company's motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiff's complaint and all cross-claims against Powell remain.
• Faivor v. Amchem Prods., Inc. (2021). The court denied summary judgment to DAP (without prejudice to renewal on proper papers), Hennessy Industries and American Biltrite, so the plaintiffs' claims against all three go forward.
• Fitzwater v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (2021). The court granted APV North America, Inc.'s (as successor to Baker Perkins) motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint and all cross-claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction in New York, severing and continuing the action against the remaining defendants.
• Greene v. Amchem Prods., Inc. (2021). The court denied Columbia Boiler's motion for summary judgment and its request for a Frye hearing, so the plaintiffs' claims against Columbia Boiler continue.
• Davis v. CompuDyne (In re Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation) (Erie, 2021). The court denied CompuDyne's motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs Jonathan and Loretta Davis, because CompuDyne's expert reports were inadmissible hearsay and, in any event, plaintiffs' experts raised triable fact issues on causation.
• Johnson v. Aerco Intl., Inc. (2021). The court denied McCord Corporation's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiff Sheila Johnson's complaint and all cross-claims against McCord remained pending.
• Kriz v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (Rockland, 2021). The court granted the ten unopposed summary judgment motions of Eaton Hydraulics, Riley Power, Foster Wheeler, ViacomCBS, General Electric, Spence Engineering, GEA Mechanical, FMC, Velan Valve and Neles-Jamesbury, and denied the motions of Fisher Scientific and Armstrong International, so the plaintiff's claims against those two proceed.
• Love v. Aerco Intl., Inc. (2021). The court denied CSC Scientific's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaints, but granted partial summary judgment dismissing claims for exposure to Cenco products before July 31, 1976 and after April 17, 1979.
• Milan-Leal v. Brenntag N. AM. (2021). The court denied retailer Lot Less's motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claims and all cross-claims, and denied its indemnity cross-claims as premature; the plaintiff estate prevailed on the motion.
• Mrjaj v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (Erie, 2021). The court granted defendant International Chimney Corporation's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against it, because the evidence did not show decedent was exposed to asbestos from an ICC product.
• Nelson v. 3M Co. (2021). The trial court granted Cleaver-Brooks' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissing the complaint against it and continuing the action against the remaining defendants.
• Smith v. AC Light. & Elec. Supplies, LLC (2021). The trial court denied National Grid's motion for summary judgment, finding plaintiffs raised a triable issue on whether LILCO, to which National Grid is successor, controlled the decedent's work at Northport.
• Sprague v. Abb, Inc. (2021). The court denied the Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust's (as successor to Fel-Pro) motion for summary judgment, so plaintiff Lorraine Sprague's complaint and the cross-claims against Fel-Pro remain.
• Unger v. AW Chesterton Co. (2021). The court denied defendant Watts Regulator Co.'s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, so plaintiffs Edward and Lisa Unger's claims against Watts continue.
• Witte v. Algoma Hardwoods, Inc. (2021). The court denied T.M. Cobb Company's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, without prejudice to renewal after further discovery, and granted plaintiffs' cross-motion to compel jurisdictional discovery and a corporate deposition of Cobb.
• Corcione v. Amchem Prods., Inc. (2020). The court granted Hoffman-New Yorker, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint and all cross-claims against it, ruling against the plaintiff executor.
• English v. Avon Prods., Inc. (2020). The court denied defendant Shulton, Inc.'s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, so plaintiff Linda English's claims against Shulton go forward.
• Piepke v. Insulation Distributors (In re Eight Judicial District Asbestos Litigation) (Erie, 2020). The trial court denied the motions of Insulation Distributors, Inc. and Niagara Insulations, Inc. for summary judgment, ruling for plaintiff, and deferred the punitive damages issue until after the liability and damages trial.
• Luca v. The Neslemur Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The court denied defendant The Neslemur Company's motion to dismiss for improper service and lack of personal jurisdiction, so plaintiffs' claims against Neslemur continue.
• DeKlerk v. Estée Lauder (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The court denied the motions of Estée Lauder Inc. and Whittaker Clark & Daniels, Inc. to dismiss the action for forum non conveniens, so the plaintiffs' case stays in New York.
• Lamenta v. American Biltrite (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The trial court granted American Biltrite's summary judgment motion and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims and all crossclaims against it, because the plaintiffs did not raise a fact issue on general or specific causation.
• Dohse v. Avon Prods. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The trial court denied Avon Products, Inc.'s motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, so the plaintiffs' action stays in New York.
• Vincent v. Baltimore Aircoil Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The court denied Baltimore Aircoil Company's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Vincents' complaint and all cross-claims, finding fact issues on product identification.
• Luca v. Whittaker, Clark and Daniels (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The court denied Whittaker, Clark and Daniels' motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint and cross-claims, and its alternative request to dismiss the punitive damages claim, so the plaintiffs' claims go forward.
• Luca v. American Int'l Indus. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The court denied American International Industries' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross-claims, and its alternative motion to dismiss the punitive damages claims, so the plaintiffs (the Luca estate and widow) won.
• Eckrich v. ECR Int'l (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The court denied ECR International's motion for summary judgment, so the Eckrich plaintiffs' claims against ECR go forward.
• Minassian v. Kolmar Laboratories (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The court denied defendant Kolmar Laboratories' motion to reverse the Special Master's recommendation that its responses to plaintiffs' supplemental discovery were insufficient, and confirmed the recommendation, so plaintiffs prevailed.
• Graul v. Tecumseh Prods. Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The court granted Tecumseh Products Company LLC's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, severing and dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims against Tecumseh; the plaintiffs lost as to Tecumseh.
• Montell v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The court granted Kaiser Gypsum's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, severed and dismissed the complaint and cross-claims against it, and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for jurisdictional discovery.
• Peterson v. Vanderbilt Mineral (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). On renewal, the court vacated its earlier grant of summary judgment to Vanderbilt Mineral, denied Vanderbilt's summary judgment motion including on punitive damages, and denied its motion to change venue, so plaintiffs Stanley and Debby Peterson won and the case was restored to the trial calendar.
• Conaway v. ABB (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The court denied defendant ABB, Inc.'s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, for forum non conveniens, so the plaintiffs (Glenda Conaway and the estate) prevailed on the motion.
• English v. Johnson & Johnson (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The court denied plaintiffs' motion to reargue and renew its July 2019 order dismissing the case against Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. for lack of personal jurisdiction, and declined to consider plaintiffs' late supplementary letter and exhibits.
• Hardman v. Revlon (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The court denied plaintiffs' motion to vacate the Special Master's recommendation, confirming that Revlon, Revlon Consumer Products and Bristol-Myers Squibb need not name their fact witnesses at this stage, and denied the defendants' cross-motion to transfer as moot.
• Germain v. The Neslemur Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The trial court denied defendant Neslemur's motion to dismiss for improper service and lack of personal jurisdiction, so plaintiffs' claims against Neslemur continue.
• Mauro v. John E. Potente & Sons (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The trial court granted John E. Potente & Sons' motion for summary judgment only to the extent of dismissing the punitive damages claims (withdrawn by stipulation) and denied the rest, so plaintiffs' claims and the cross-claims against Potente remain.
• Mauro v. Kennedy Electrical Supply, Corp. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The trial court denied Kennedy Electrical Supply Corp.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint and cross-claims, finding a fact issue on whether the decedent was exposed to asbestos products Kennedy sold to Con Ed.
• Peterson v. Vanderbilt Minerals (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The court granted Vanderbilt Minerals, LLC summary judgment dismissing the Petersons' claims and all cross-claims because plaintiffs' expert reports were not in admissible form, but denied its forum non conveniens dismissal request.
• Mauro v. Consolidated Edison of New York (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The court denied Consolidated Edison's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Mauro plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims, finding triable issues of fact on the Labor Law § 200, common-law negligence and § 241(6) claims.