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 trial courts

New York Supreme Court

• 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.
• McDonald v. CBS Corp. (2013). The court denied defendant Hoffman-New Yorker, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, so plaintiffs' claims against Hoffman continue.
• Rollock v. 3M Company (2013). The court granted Griffin Wheel Company's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint and cross-claims against it, because plaintiff could not show Rollock was exposed to Griffin's brake shoes; the case continued against the other defendants.
• Stitt v. Burham Corp. (2013). The court denied the Stitts' motion to vacate the Special Master's recommendation, confirmed it, refused to place the case on the October 2013 In-Extremis cluster, and ordered it onto the FIFO docket, in favor of defendant Georgia-Pacific.
• Tobin v. Aerco Intl. (2013). The court granted Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint and cross-claims against it, because plaintiff showed no exposure to asbestos from a Crane product; the action continues against the other defendants.
• Vadi v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (2013). The court denied Georgia-Pacific's motion for summary judgment, so the wrongful death claims by Mrs. Bou's daughters against Georgia-Pacific continue.
• Vega v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC (2013). The court denied Union Carbide Corporation's motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint and cross-claims, leaving Glenda Vega's claims against it for trial.
• Vellucci v. Borg-Warner Corp. (2013). The trial court denied Trane US, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the Velluccis' complaint and all cross-claims, so the plaintiffs' claims against Trane continue.
• Walker v. Abb, Inc. (2013). The court denied defendant Meriden Molded Plastics' motion to dismiss for improper service and extended plaintiffs' time to serve it until September 9, 2013, so plaintiffs prevailed.
• Wilson v. 3M Co. (2013). The trial court denied summary judgment motions by American Insulated Wire Corporation and Leviton Manufacturing Co., leaving the plaintiffs' claims against both defendants to proceed.
• Wilson v. 3M Company (2013). The court granted Belden Wire and Cable's motion to renew but, on renewal, again denied Belden's motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiff's claim against Belden continues.
• Adler v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (2012). The trial court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a joint trial only in part, ordering the 22 in extremis cases tried in three disease-based groups (lung cancer, non-Navy mesothelioma, Navy mesothelioma) and severing Vega and Neuer for separate trials, over the defendants' objections to any joinder.
• Bernard v. Brookfield Props. Corp. (2012). The court confirmed, as modified, the Special Master's recommendation: Colgate-Palmolive could not claim attorney-client privilege over its pre-deposition talks with former employee Dr. Turse, but its counsel properly asserted work-product protection against broad questions about those talks, so the plaintiffs could submit written questions or reopen the deposition while avoiding counsel's mental impressions.
• Bischofsberger v. AO Smith Water Products (2012). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the Verde and Ploeckelmann mesothelioma actions for a joint trial, and ordered the Verde case tried first and the Ploeckelmann case immediately after.
• Chilarski v. AW Chesterton Co. (2012). The court denied Goodyear's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross-claims, and also denied the plaintiffs' request for spoliation sanctions against Goodyear.
• Crane v. AO Smith Water Products Co. (2012). The court denied National Grid Generation, LLC's (sued as LILCO) motion for summary judgment, so plaintiffs Paul and Arlene Crane's claims against it continue.
• Feinberg v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (2012). The court denied Colgate-Palmolive's motion to dismiss Arlene Feinberg's failure-to-warn claim, rejecting its federal preemption and primary jurisdiction arguments, so the plaintiffs prevailed on the motion.
• Konstantin v. 630 Third Ave. Assoc. (2012). The court denied Tishman Liquidating Corp.'s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and upheld liability and the economic damages, but vacated the $7 million and $12 million pain and suffering awards and ordered a new damages trial unless plaintiff Konstantin accepts reductions to $4.5 million and $3.5 million.
• Lovaglio v. AW Chesterton Co. (2012). The court denied hardware-store defendant John J. Doody & Son's renewed motion for summary judgment, so the Lovaglio plaintiffs' claims against Doody go forward.
• Bernard v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (2012). The court granted defendant Colgate-Palmolive's motion for open commissions to depose out-of-state non-party witnesses Dr. Jian-Jun Wei and Norma Cuffe, over the plaintiffs' opposition, with depositions to be completed by March 30, 2012.
• Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. Ronald Dummitt v. AW Chesterton (2012). The court denied Crane Co.'s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and upheld liability for plaintiff Ronald Dummitt. It vacated the $16 million past and $16 million future pain-and-suffering awards unless he accepts a reduction to $5.5 million and $2.5 million.
• McDonald v. AC &S., Inc. (2012). The court denied defendant Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment, leaving the estate's claims against Crane Co. for trial.
• Neuer v. American Art Clay Co., Inc. (2012). The court denied the motions for summary judgment by Metro-North, the MTA, Conrail and APU, leaving plaintiff Thomas Neuer's FELA asbestos claim to go to trial.
• Perez v. Port Auth. of NY & NJ (2012). The court denied the Port Authority's motion to dismiss the Perez plaintiffs' Labor Law § 200 complaint and granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motion to consolidate the two actions.
• Roman v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (2012). The court denied defendant Taco, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, leaving plaintiffs Roberto and Trudy Roman's claims against Taco for trial.
• Romero v. AC & S., Inc. (2012). The court denied Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment in its entirety, so the estate's claims against Crane Co. continue toward trial.
• Sadowski v. AO Smith Water Prods. (2012). The court denied Georgia-Pacific's motion for summary judgment in its entirety, so the Sadowskis' claims against it continue.
• Sadowski v. AO Smith Water Products (2012). The court denied Lennox Industries' motion for summary judgment, so the Sadowskis' claims against Lennox continue.
• Walker v. Abb, Inc. (2012). The court denied defendant Reichhold Chemicals' motion for summary judgment without prejudice to renewal after discovery is completed, so plaintiffs (the Walkers) prevailed for now.
• Andrucki v. Alcoa, Inc. (2011). The court denied the Port Authority's motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs (the Andruckis) met the notice-of-claim and timing conditions and that the court had subject matter jurisdiction over the claims against the Port Authority.
• Bernard v. Brookfield Props. Corp. (2011). The court confirmed the referee's report and denied summary judgment to Brookfield, New Water Street Corporation and Retirement Systems of Alabama, and denied RSA's personal jurisdiction motion, all with leave to renew after discovery, so the estate and co-defendant Colgate prevailed for now.
• Defazio v. AW Chesterton (2011). The court denied defendant Crane Co.'s motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, finding the motion barred by laches and inexcusable delay, so the estate's case stayed in New York.
• Defazio v. Chesterton (2011). The court denied Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiff executrix's failure-to-warn claims against Crane Co. over asbestos components used with its valves went forward.
• Finazzo v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (2011). The trial court granted Georgia-Pacific's motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff Finazzo's claims and all cross-claims against it, while the action continued against the other defendants.
• Friedman v. AI Friedman, LP (2011). The trial court denied defendant DAP Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in its entirety, so plaintiff Roberta Friedman's claims against DAP go forward.
• Graham v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (2011). The court denied defendant Aurora Pump Company's motion for a protective order and confirmed the Special Master's recommendation requiring Aurora to produce microfilm sales records and drawings to plaintiff George Graham.
• Auletta v. Crane Co (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation Cluster) (2011). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion in part, ordering one joint trial of the four Navy/shipyard cases and another of six other cases, with the remaining cases in the cluster to be tried individually, rather than one trial of all ten cases the plaintiffs wanted; the defendants' opposition to joint trials failed except as to size.
• Konstantin v. 630 Third Ave. Assocs. (2011). The court denied Tishman Liquidating Corporation's motion for summary judgment, leaving David Konstantin's claims against it to proceed.
• Chinea v. Keystone Shipping (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (2011). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion and ordered two joint trial groups of four asbestos plaintiffs each, over the defendants' joint opposition, with group 1 to begin jury selection on October 3, 2011.
• Conti v. Crane Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (2011). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion and consolidated eight asbestos cases for a joint trial over the defendants' joint opposition.
• Tedrick v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Matter of Nyc Asbestos Litig.) (2011). The court granted Colgate-Palmolive's in limine motion to apply Oregon's $500,000 cap on noneconomic damages, ruling against the estate plaintiffs who wanted New York law with no cap.
• Bernard v. Brookfield Prop. Corp. (2010). The court denied Colgate-Palmolive's motion to renew its opposition and granted Citigroup's summary judgment motion as to Colgate's cross-claims, so Citigroup won and Colgate lost.