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

• McCloskey v. AO Smith Water Prods. (2014). The court denied Mario & DiBono's motion to set aside the verdict on causation, recklessness, apportionment, pain and suffering and consolidation, but ordered a new trial on loss of consortium damages unless plaintiffs accept a reduction of that award from $2 million to $340,000.
• McKim v. AO Smith Water Prod. Co. (2014). The court granted the boiler defendants' forum non conveniens motion on condition that all defendants waive jurisdictional and limitations defenses in another forum, staying the action and later dismissing it, against the McKim plaintiffs.
• Noble v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (2014). The trial court denied Lennox Industries' motion for summary judgment, so plaintiff Harriet Noble's claims against Lennox continue.
• Norton v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (2014). The trial court granted O'Connor Constructors' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims against it, while the case continued against the other defendants.
• Proctor v. Alcoa, Inc. (2014). The trial court denied Duro Dyne Corporation's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiffs James and Joy Proctor's claims against Duro Dyne go forward.
• Proctor v. Alcoa, Inc. (2014). The court denied defendant Andal Corporation's motion for summary judgment, finding triable issues of fact on whether Andal, as successor to Star Circle and Circle Floors, was responsible for plaintiff James Proctor's asbestos exposure at the World Trade Center.
• Proctor v. Alcoa, Inc. (2014). The court denied Momentive Specialty Chemicals (sued as Borden Chemical) summary judgment, because plaintiff James Proctor's deposition testimony raised a fact issue about exposure to asbestos from Borden's Duro-Dyne duct sealer.
• Shtockhammer v. 29th Street Hotel Acquisition, LLC (2014). The court denied the motion to dismiss by the current property owner (Acquisition) and, without prejudice to renewal after discovery, by Mezz, Hotel and JCMC, but granted it for Chetrit Group, which had never held any interest, so plaintiff Shtockhammer's claims continued against the others.
• Smith v. 3M Company (2014). The court denied Con Ed's motion for summary judgment, leaving plaintiffs' claims and the cross-claims against Con Ed in place, because a triable issue existed on whether Con Ed could have prevented Mr. Smith's injuries.
• Vantosh v. 3M Co. (2014). The court vacated the Special Master's recommendation, ordered Dow Corning to answer plaintiffs' standard interrogatories and produce a corporate witness, and denied Dow Corning's summary judgment motion without prejudice to renewal after discovery, so plaintiffs won.
• Wiacek v. 3M Co. (2014). The court granted North Safety Products' summary judgment motion on the breach of warranty and design defect claims and denied it on the failure to warn claim and the pleading-sufficiency challenge, so the failure to warn claim goes forward.
• Zimmerman v. AO Smith Water Prods. (2014). The court denied Rheem Manufacturing Company's motion for summary judgment, so the estate's claims against Rheem go forward.
• Adler v. 3M Co. (2013). The court denied both the plaintiffs' motion and Volkswagen's motion and confirmed the Special Master's recommendation, so Volkswagen may depose the plaintiff's pathologist in Milan and must pay the reasonable travel expenses of one of the plaintiffs' lawyers.
• Assenzio v. AO Smith Water Prods. (2013). The court granted plaintiffs' motion in part, consolidating 15 asbestos cases into three joint trial groups and ordering the Liberman and Vara cases tried separately, over the defendants' objections.
• Bailen v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (2013). The court denied Union Pacific Railroad Company's motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, so plaintiffs Eddie Bailen and Rena Ash-Bailen keep their case in New York.
• Baiocco v. AC & S., Inc. (2013). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate in part, ordering three joint trials (Byrnes, Cayen and Latzer; Dell'Arciprete and Kornacki; Baiocco and Blank) and ordering the Balducci case tried separately.
• Barawa v. Acker Drill Co. (2013). The court denied Ford Motor Company's motion for summary judgment except for the unopposed loss of consortium claim, which was dismissed; plaintiffs largely prevailed.
• Barton v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (2013). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion in part, ordering three joint trials: the three lung cancer plaintiffs together, four mesothelioma plaintiffs together, and the three shipyard or Army mesothelioma plaintiffs together.
• Baruch v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. (2013). The court denied Fisher Scientific Company's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiffs Ester and Nerye Baruch's claims against Fisher continue.
• Berensmann v. 3M Co. (2013). The court denied defendant Georgia-Pacific's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiffs William and Madelyn Berensmann's claims against it continue.
• Brown v. Bell & Gosset Co. (2013). The court granted LILCO (National Grid Generation) summary judgment dismissing the unopposed Labor Law § 241(6) claim but denied it as to the Labor Law § 200 claim, so plaintiffs Harry and Phyllis Brown's § 200 claim continues.
• Brown v. Bell & Gossett Co. (2013). The court granted Con Edison summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241(6) claim (unopposed) but denied it on the Labor Law § 200 and common-law claims, so those claims by Harry and Phyllis Brown go forward.
• Cisler v. AO Smith Water Products Co. (2013). The trial court granted Union Carbide Corporation's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims against it, while the case continued against the other defendants.
• Crane v. Crane Co. (2013). On reargument, the court granted LILCO's summary judgment motion only as to the Labor Law § 241(6) claim, which was dismissed as unopposed, and otherwise denied it, so the Labor Law § 200 and common law claims by the Cranes against LILCO continue.
• Feinstein v. Armstrong Intl., Inc. (2013). The court denied Ingersoll Rand Company's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiffs' claims against Ingersoll continue.
• Finerty v. Abex Corp. (2013). The court found plaintiffs made a sufficient start to warrant jurisdictional discovery, referred it to the Special Master, marked Ford Ireland's and Ford England's motions to dismiss off the calendar with leave to reinstate, and denied the motions to stay discovery as moot.
• Fischer v. Aerco Intl., Inc. (2013). The trial court granted defendant Nash Engineering Company's summary judgment motion and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims and all cross-claims against Nash, while the action continued against the remaining defendants.
• Frieder v. Long Is. RR (2013). The court denied the Long Island Railroad and Metropolitan Transportation Authority's motion for summary judgment, finding the LIRR owed Mr. Frieder a duty of care and that fact questions remained on exposure, so the plaintiffs prevailed on the motion.
• Friedman v. AO Smith Corp. (2013). The court granted Graybar Electric Co.'s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action and cross-claims against it, while the case continued against the remaining defendants.
• Garbutt v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (2013). The court denied Lennox Industries' motion for summary judgment, leaving plaintiffs' claims against Lennox to go forward.
• Griffin v. AP Servs., Inc. (2013). The trial court denied defendant William Powell Company's motion for summary judgment, finding plaintiff Robert Griffin raised a triable issue about exposure to asbestos from Powell valves aboard the USS Eberle.
• Hammer v. Algoma (2013). The court denied Bird Incorporated's motion for summary judgment, leaving the Hammers' claims against Bird for trial.
• Juni v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (2013). The court denied defendant Lipe Automation Corporation's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiffs Arthur and Mary Juni's claims against Lipe continue.
• Kelly v. Airco Welders Supply (2013). The court denied Milwaukee Valve Company's motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiff's claims against it continue.
• Liberman v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (2013). The court granted Union Carbide Corporation's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint and cross claims against it, because plaintiffs did not show Mr. Liberman was exposed to UCC's asbestos; the case continued against the other defendants.
• Lindsay v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (2013). The court denied Leviton Manufacturing Co.'s motion for summary judgment, finding material fact issues on whether plaintiff William Lindsay was exposed to asbestos from Leviton light fixtures and outlets, so the plaintiffs' case against Leviton goes to a jury.
• Lindsay v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (2013). The court denied defendant Kohler Co.'s motion for summary judgment, so plaintiffs William and Patricia Lindsay's claims against Kohler continue.
• Logan v. AP Miller-Maersk, Inc. (2013). The court denied Cemex's motion for summary judgment dismissing all claims and cross-claims against it, because the missing agreements left questions of fact and plaintiffs raised a triable issue of de facto merger with Seas Shipping.
• Logan v. AP Moller-Maersk, Inc. (2013). The court denied defendant Blackmer Pump Company's motion for summary judgment, finding Blackmer failed to make a prima facie showing, so plaintiffs John and Gail Logan's claims against it continued.
• Logan v. AP Moller-Maersk, Inc. (2013). The court denied Union Carbide's cross-motion for summary judgment in its entirety, so plaintiffs John and Gail Logan prevailed, and denied Georgia Pacific's motion as moot because plaintiffs had settled with it.
• Lowe v. Aerco Intl., Inc. (2013). The trial court denied Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment in its entirety, so plaintiffs' claims against Crane proceed.
• Macek v. CBS Corporation (2013). The court denied Union Carbide Corporation's motion for summary judgment in its entirety, so the plaintiffs' claims against it go forward.
• Bernard v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (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.) (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. v. Durez Corp. (2013). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the Kestenbaum, Fernandez, Spina and Wilson asbestos cases for joint trial over the defendants' opposition.
• Dietrich v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2013). The court granted plaintiffs' motion to consolidate in part, ordering joint trials of the three lung cancer plaintiffs, of a group of mesothelioma plaintiffs, and of a separate group of Dietrich, McDonald and Yetter, rather than the two groups plaintiffs requested.
• Ambruso v. Goulds Pumps (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2013). The court granted plaintiffs' motion to consolidate 15 asbestos cases into four joint-trial groups (Navy, Construction, Automotive, Building Maintenance) over the defendants' opposition.
• Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation v. AW Chesterton Co., Inc. (2013). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a joint trial only for Carlucci, Krekora and Lightsy, and ordered the Fishbein, Frieder, Perez and Ryan cases tried separately.
• McCloskey v. AO Smith Water Prod. Co. (2013). The court granted Con Edison summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 claim, which plaintiffs did not oppose, but denied the rest of its motion, so the common-law claims against Con Edison go forward.
• McCloskey v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (2013). The court denied Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiffs' claims against it continue, and granted Goodyear Canada, Inc.'s motion as unopposed, dismissing the claims against it.