New York Asbestos Case Law

Asbestos decisions from New York's courts and the federal courts there: 711 cases in our library so far. For what the law requires today, see New York asbestos laws; for where exposure happened, see New York asbestos exposure sites.

State supreme court

New York Court of Appeals

• 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.

State appeals courts

New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division

• Beagan v. Akebono Brake Corp. (1st Dept., 2025). The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of summary judgment to American Honda Motor Co. and Nissan North America, so plaintiff, the decedent's estate administrator, kept New York long-arm jurisdiction over them.
• Kirby v. David Fabricators OF NY, Inc. (1st Dept., 2025). The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of David Fabricators' motion to dismiss, so plaintiff Kirby's mesothelioma action against it continues.
• Maffei v. Burnham (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (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.
• Matter of Johnson & Johnson v. Northwell Health Inc. (1st Dept., 2024). The Appellate Division reversed Supreme Court's orders, granting Johnson & Johnson's petition to enforce the out-of-state subpoena against Northwell Health, and denying Dr. Moline's petition to quash while granting the cross-petition to enforce.
• McWilliams v. Jenkins Bros. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (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.
• English v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (1st Dept., 2024). The First Department reversed the trial court's denial of Colgate-Palmolive's summary judgment motion, granted the motion and dismissed the complaint against Colgate, ruling against the plaintiff executor.
• Seen v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (1st Dept., 2024). The First Department modified the judgment against Kaiser Gypsum, ordering a new trial on pain and suffering damages unless plaintiff stipulated to reduce the $15 million award to $10 million, remanded to recalculate the judgment for settlement offsets, and otherwise affirmed the verdict for plaintiff.
• Meissner v. Ridge Constr. Corp. (4th Dept., 2024). The Appellate Division vacated the judgment against Lloyd's, and modified the order by denying the Meissners' motion and renewed motion for summary judgment, because fact issues remained on timely notice and on when injury-in-fact occurred; it held the primary policy was exhausted and the loss was a covered occurrence.
• Tippin v. 3M Co., Alcat (1st Dept., 2024). The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's denial of summary judgment and granted Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc., and LTL Management LLC's motion, dismissing plaintiff Tippin's complaint against them.
• Howard v. AO Smith Water Prods. (3rd Dept., 2023). The Appellate Division modified the order, granting Armstrong Pumps partial summary judgment for exposure before December 20, 1965 (which plaintiffs conceded), and otherwise affirmed the denial of summary judgment, so plaintiffs Howard and his spouse won on the remaining claims.
• Matter of Reid v. National Grid (3rd Dept., 2023). The Appellate Division affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision setting the decedent's date of disablement at his date of death, March 2, 2019, against the employer and carrier, who appealed, so the claimant's widow's death benefits stood.
• Sason v. Dykes Lumber Co., Inc. (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.
• English v. Avon Prods., Inc. (1st Dept., 2022). The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Shulton's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, so plaintiffs Linda English et al. defeated the motion by Shulton's successor, Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co.
• Matter of Miller v. Mo Maier Ltd. (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.
• Olson v. Johnson & Johnson (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (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.
• Pomponi v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (1st Dept., 2022). The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's order and granted American Biltrite Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint and cross claims against it.
• Hildebrand v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (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.
• Pistone v. American Biltrite, Inc. (2nd Dept., 2021). The Appellate Division reversed the order granting summary judgment to American Biltrite, Inc. and Mannington Mills, Inc., and denied their motions, so the plaintiffs' claims against them continue.
• Fischer v. American Biltrite, Inc. (1st Dept., 2020). The First Department reversed the order granting Burnham's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, denied the motion so plaintiffs won, and dismissed the appeal from the denial of renewal as moot.
• Stock v. Jenkins Bros. (Matter of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation) (4th Dept., 2020). The Fourth Department unanimously affirmed the order denying both Jenkins Bros.' and plaintiff Lynn Stock's post-trial motions, leaving the jury verdict for plaintiff in place.
• Matter of Gimber v. Eastman Kodak Co. (3rd Dept., 2020). The Appellate Division affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision denying Eastman Kodak and its carrier's request to apportion the death benefits claim with prior employer International Paper.
• Matter of New York Asbestos Litig. (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.
• Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (1st Dept., 2020). The First Department upheld the jury's liability verdict against the Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust (successor to Felt Products) but ordered a new trial on past pain and suffering and past loss of consortium unless plaintiff agreed to reduce those awards to $5.5 million and $650,000.
• Nemeth v. Brenntag N. Am. (1st Dept., 2020). The Appellate Division modified the judgment against Whittaker, Clark & Daniels (WCD) to increase it to $3,300,000 because the trial court had miscalculated the settlement offsets, and otherwise affirmed the plaintiff's jury verdict; one judge dissented and would have entered judgment for WCD.
• Billok v. Union Carbide Corp. (3rd Dept., 2019). The Appellate Division reversed the judgment entered on a jury verdict for Union Carbide and remitted for a new trial, because deposition testimony from other lawsuits was wrongly admitted; plaintiff Billok prevailed on the appeal.
• Ford v. AO Smith Water Products (1st Dept., 2019). The First Department modified the judgment against Burnham LLC, vacating the $2 million future pain and suffering award and ordering a new trial on those damages unless plaintiff stipulated to reduce it to $500,000, and otherwise affirmed the verdict for plaintiff.
• Matter of Miller v. Mo Maier Ltd. (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 New York City Asbestos Litig. (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.
• Macaluso v. A.O. Smith Corp. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (1st Dept., 2019). The First Department affirmed the jury verdict for plaintiff on liability but ordered a new trial on damages unless plaintiff stipulated to further reduce the awards to $4 million for pain and suffering and $1 million for each child's loss of parental guidance.
• Brown v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (1st Dept., 2019). The Appellate Division reversed the judgment that capped Con Ed's share at 30% and directed an amended judgment apportioning 65% of plaintiff's total recovery against Con Ed, so plaintiff won and Con Ed lost; Con Ed's cross appeal from the denial of summary judgment was dismissed.
• Shanahan v. Aerco Intl., Inc. (1st Dept., 2019). The First Department affirmed the denial of Algoma Hardwoods' motion for summary judgment, so plaintiff Michelle Shanahan's claims against Algoma continue.
• Matter of Claim OF Manocchio v. Abb Combustion Eng'g (3rd Dept., 2017). The Appellate Division affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision denying the carrier for ABB Combustion Engineering's request to apportion liability among claimant Manocchio's prior employers, so ABB and its carrier lost.
• Matter of Diegelman v. City of Buffalo (4th Dept., 2017). On remittitur from the Court of Appeals, the Appellate Division affirmed the order allowing claimants James R. Diegelman and others to serve a late notice of claim on the City of Buffalo and the other respondents, who lost the appeal.
• Miller v. Hennessy Indus. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (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.) (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.