Pira v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (2024)

Our plain-English summary of Pira v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, January 5, 2024).

Joseph Pira, as administrator of the estate of Giacinto Pira, and Maria Pira sued many companies over Mr. Pira's mesothelioma. Mr. Pira had worked as a seaman for the Italian Line in the 1960s and testified that he used gloves made by Steel Grip, Inc. Steel Grip asked the New York County Supreme Court for summary judgment. It argued that there was no confirmed contact with its gloves. It also argued that the asbestos in such gloves could not have been enough to cause mesothelioma, and it offered an expert report and studies. The plaintiff answered with Mr. Pira's testimony and its own expert report and studies pointing the other way. The court denied the motion. It said Steel Grip had to prove affirmatively that there was no causation, and it had not shown that the gloves on the ship could not have been its own or that they contained no asbestos. The conflicting expert evidence on how much asbestos he was exposed to, and whether it caused his illness, raised fact questions for trial.

We wrote this summary from the court's opinion with the help of AI. It is not the court's wording, and it is not legal advice. The full opinion is below.

The decision

• Court: New York Supreme Court
• Decided: January 5, 2024
• Citation: 2024 NY Slip Op 30069(U)
• Stage: Summary judgment
• Unpublished opinion. Many courts limit citing unpublished opinions as precedent.
• State: New York

Outcome. The court denied defendant Steel Grip, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in its entirety, so the estate's claims against Steel Grip continue.

What the court held. A defendant seeking summary judgment on causation must affirmatively prove as a matter of law that there was no causation, not merely argue the plaintiff cannot prove it; competing expert evidence on exposure and causation raises a fact question.

Issues decided: Causation, Expert Testimony, Product Identification.

The people and their exposure

• Giacinto Pira: mesothelioma; died

Who	Work	Where	When	Products
Giacinto Pira	seaman (shipyards and maritime work)	ship of the Italian Line	1960s	asbestos textiles, Steel Grip safety gloves

The defendants

• Steel Grip, Inc. (manufacturer)

Decisions this opinion cites

Earlier decisions in our library that the court cited:

• Sason v. Dykes Lumber Co., Inc. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 2023). The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Dykes Lumber Company's summary judgment motion, so plaintiff Raphael Sason's claims against Dykes Lumber continue.
• Reid v. Georgia-Pac. Corp. (New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 1st Dept., 1995). The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Rapid-American Corporation's motion for summary judgment, so plaintiff Kenneth Reid's claim against it continues.

The court's opinion

The text below is Google Scholar's copy of the court's opinion, a public record. Numbers in brackets, such as [*921], mark where each page of the printed reporter begins.

2024 NY Slip Op 30069(U)

JOSEPH PIRA, AS ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF GIACINTO PIRA AND MARIA PIRA,

INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiff,

v.

AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, AS SUCCESSOR-BY-MERGER TO BUFFALO PUMPS,

INC, AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC., N/K/A RHONE POULENC AG COMPANY, N/K/A BAYER

CROPSCIENCE INC, AMERICAN OPTICAL CORPORATION, BW/IP, INC. AND ITS WHOLLY OWNED

SUBSIDIARIES, CBS CORPORATION, F/K/A VIACOM INC., SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CBS

CORPORATION, F/K/A WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, CRANE CO, DCO LLC F/K/A

DANA COMPANIES, LLC, ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC. INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS

SUCCESSOR TO TAPPAN AND COPES-VULCAN, EMPIRE-ACE INSULATION MFG. CORP,

FLOWSERVE US, INC. INDIVIDUALLY AND SUCCESSOR TO ROCKWELL MANUFACTURING

COMPANY, EDWARD VALVE, INC., NORDSTROM VALVES, INC., EDWARD VOGT VALVE COMPANY,

AND VOGT VALVE COMPANY, FMC CORPORATION, ON BEHALF OF ITS FORMER CHICAGO

PUMP & NORTHERN PUMP BUSINESSES, GARDNER DENVER, INC, GENERAL ELECTRIC

COMPANY, GOODYEAR CANADA, INC, GOULDS PUMPS LLC, GUARD-LINE, INC, GUTHRIE

DELAWARE, INC, HOBART BROTHERS COMPANY, HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., F/K/A

ALLIED SIGNAL, INC./BENDIX, IMO INDUSTRIES, INC, ITT LLC., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS

SUCCESSOR TO BELL & GOSSETT AND AS SUCCESSOR TO KENNEDY VALVE MANUFACTURING

CO., INC, JENKINS BROS, MCCORD CORPORATION, MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY,

MORSE TEC LLC, PFIZER, INC. (PFIZER), PREST-O-SALES & SERVICES, INC, STEEL GRIP

SAFETY APPAREL COMPANY, INC, STEEL GRIP, INC., STEEL GRIP, INC., A/K/A VOORHEES, INC

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO STEEL GRIP SAFETY APPAREL COMPANY,

INC, TENNECO AUTOMOTIVE OPERATING COMPANY INC, THE BOC GROUP, INC, THE

GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY, U.S. RUBBER COMPANY (UNIROYAL), UNION

CARBIDE CORPORATION, WARREN PUMPS, LLC, Defendant.

STEEL GRIP, INC Plaintiff,

v.

TOURISTIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, AG, HAPAG-LLOYD CRUISES, A TUI CRUISES GMBH

COMPANY Defendant.

Index No. 190093/2020, Third-Party Index No. 595297/2021, Motion Seq. No. 004.

Motion October 24, 2023.

January 5, 2024.

Supreme Court, New York County.

DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION

ADAM SILVERA, J.S.C.

It is ordered that the instant motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of this action, pursuant to CPLR § 3212, is denied for the reasons set forth below.

Here, defendant Steel Grip, Inc. ("Steel Grip") moves for summary judgment to dismiss this action on the grounds that plaintiff-decedent, Giacinto Pira ("Mr. Pira") did not establish any confirmed contact with or exposure from Steel Grip manufactured gloves during the course of his work as a seaman for the Italian Line during the 1960s. Moving defendant

further argues that plaintiff cannot establish adequate causation of Mr. Pira's mesothelioma from asbestos found in safety gloves. Defendant Steel Grip proffers their own expert report and citations to studies suggesting that the amounts of asbestos potentially released from similar gloves are of insufficient quantity to cause mesothelioma. In opposition, plaintiff highlights Mr. Pira's clear and unequivocal testimony identifying Steel Grip as a manufacturer of gloves he used through his employment, and proffers their own expert report and conflicting citations to studies regarding potentially dangerous levels of asbestos exposure from asbestos-containing gloves.

The Court notes that summary judgment is a drastic remedy and should only be granted if the moving party has sufficiently established that it is warranted as a matter of law. See Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 (1986). "The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case". Winegrad v New York University Medical Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853 (1985). Despite the sufficiency of the opposing papers, the failure to make such a showing requires denial of the motion. See id. at 853.

Additionally, summary judgment motions should be denied if the opposing party presents admissible evidence establishing that there is a genuine issue of fact remaining. See Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 560 (1980). "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), citing Dauman Displays, Inc. v Masturzo, 168 AD2d 204 (1st Dep't 1990). The court's role is "issue-finding, rather than issue-determination". Sillman v Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395, 404 (1957) (internal quotations omitted). As such, summary judgment is rarely granted in negligence actions unless there is no conflict at all in the evidence. See Ugarriza v Schmieder, 46 NY2d 471, 475-476 (1979). Furthermore, the Appellate Division, First Department has held that on a motion for summary judgment, it is moving defendant's burden "to unequivocally establish that its product could not have contributed to the causation of plaintiff's injury". Reid v Georgia-Pacific Corp., 212 AD2d 462, 463 (1st Dep't 1995).

The appropriate standard at summary judgment for moving defendant Steel Grip can be found in Dyer v Amchem Products Inc., 207 AD3d 408, 409 (1st Dep't 2022). In Dyer, defendants were granted summary judgment not by "simply argu[ing] that plaintiff could not affirmatively prove causation" but by "affirmatively prov[ing], as a matter of law, that there was no causation." Id. The Appellate Division, First Department, recently affirmed this Court's decision in Sason v Dykes Lumber Co., Inc., et. al., 2023 NY Slip Op 05796 (1st Dep't 2023), stating that "the parties' competing causation evidence constituted the classic `battle of the experts'" sufficient to raise a question of fact, and to preclude summary judgment. Here, the Court notes that Mr. Pira clearly identified Steel Grip as a manufacturer of gloves to which he was exposed. Moreover, Steel Grip has manufactured such items, and has failed to proffer any evidence to suggest that the gloves found on the ship Mr. Pira worked on could not have been manufactured by them, or that such gloves did not contain asbestos. As such, defendant has failed to meet its burden under Dyer. Furthermore, plaintiff has proffered conflicting expert and academic evidence herein to raise issues of fact regarding the amount of asbestos Mr. Pira could have been exposed to from such gloves, and whether such exposure is causally related to Mr. Pira's illness. Thus, sufficient issues of fact have been raised regarding Mr. Pira's exposure to Steel Grip products, such that summary judgment must be denied. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that defendant Steel Grip's motion for summary judgment is denied in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that within 30 days of entry, plaintiff shall serve a copy of this decision/order upon all parties with notice of entry. This constitutes the Decision/Order of the Court.

Sources

• The opinion on Google Scholar
• New York asbestos laws
• New York asbestos exposure sites