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

• Bernard v. Brookfield Prop. Corp. (2010). The court granted defendant Ruderman's motion to dismiss the complaint and cross claims against it, without prejudice to recommencement, denied its premature summary judgment request, and denied Colgate's cross motion to treat its late notice of claim as timely served.
• Carroll v. AO Smith Water Prods. (2010). The trial court denied Neles-Jamesbury's motion for summary judgment, so the Carrolls' claims against it continued.
• Carroll v. AO Smith Water Prods., Co. (2010). The court denied the motion for summary judgment by Electrolux Home Products (as successor to Tappan and Copes-Vulcan) and Spirax Sarco, so the plaintiffs' claims against them continue.
• Fleming v. Advance Auto Parts, LLC (2010). The court granted Dana Companies' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint and all cross-claims against Dana; the action continued against the remaining defendants.
• Friedman v. AI Friedman, LP (2010). The trial court denied defendant United Gilsonite Laboratories' motion for summary judgment, so plaintiff Roberta Friedman's claims against it proceed.
• Hauser v. AW Chesterton Co. (2010). The court granted summary judgment to Treadwell and Courter, dismissing the claims and counter-claims against them, because plaintiffs showed no evidence that Mr. Hauser was exposed to asbestos products they supplied or installed; the case continues against the other defendants.
• Horn v. A.W. Chesterson Co. (In re Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (2010). The court granted the plaintiffs' main request to consolidate eight asbestos personal injury and wrongful death actions into three groups for successive joint trials, denied their alternative request for a six-case joint trial, and overruled the defendants' opposition.
• Kline v. Crane Co. (IN the Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (2010). The court granted Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Kline estate's complaint and all cross-claims against Crane Co., while the case continued against the remaining defendants.
• McDermott v. Mario & DiBono Plastering Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (2010). The court granted the McDermott plaintiffs' motion to quash defendant Mario & DiBono Plastering's subpoena and notice to depose non-party witness Michael Ciron, because the defendant had not shown the deposition was necessary.
• Horn v. Treadwell Corp. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (2010). The court granted Treadwell's summary judgment motion only for exposure during Mr. Horn's employment with Treadwell (barred by workers' compensation exclusivity) and denied it for exposure before that employment, so the plaintiff partly prevailed.
• Dietz v. Fulton Boilerworks (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (2010). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion in part, consolidating the Dietz and Pearce actions for a joint trial against the remaining defendants; the Cole and Dosch actions had settled.
• Batista v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (2010). The court granted plaintiffs' motion for a joint trial in part, joining five mesothelioma cases for one trial and two lung cancer cases for a later trial over defendants' objections, and stayed the Link case until a personal representative is substituted for the deceased plaintiff.
• Miranda v. Abex Corp. (2010). The court denied Goodyear's motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs Ernesto and Diana Miranda because factual issues remained about whether Mr. Miranda was exposed to asbestos in Goodyear-branded brakes.
• Miranda v. Abex Corp. (2010). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion in part, consolidating the Miranda, DiBenedetto and Sommer actions for a joint trial over the defendants' objections, and ordered the Cheney action tried separately right afterward.
• Stewart v. AO Smith Water Products (2010). The court granted Parker Hannifin's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the Stewarts' complaint and all cross claims against it, because plaintiffs failed to identify an asbestos-containing Parker Hannifin product; the action continues against other defendants.
• Thaut v. AO Smith Water Prods. (2010). The trial court denied Clark-Reliance Corporation's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross-claims, so plaintiff Rodney Thaut's claims against it continue.
• Thaut v. AO Smith Water Prods. (2010). The trial court denied defendant Aurora Pump Company's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff Rodney Thaut's complaint and all cross claims, finding triable issues of fact on exposure.
• United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. American Re-Insurance Company (2010). The court denied American Re's, American Home's and the ECRA defendants' motions for summary judgment, and granted USF&G summary judgment against American Re ($202,507,261.50 plus interest) and against ECRA and its pool members ($59,786,218.81 plus interest).
• Beltrami v. AO Smith Water Prod. Co. (2009). The trial court denied Gorman-Rupp's motion for summary judgment and denied Water Applications' cross-motion for common-law indemnification against Gorman, without prejudice to renewal at trial, so plaintiffs kept their claims.
• Convery v. AO Smith Water Products, Inc. (2009). The trial court denied defendant Treadwell Corporation's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims against it, finding fact issues on exposure.
• Crowder V AW Chesterton Co. (2009). The court granted Volkswagen Group of America's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint and all cross-claims against it as barred by Indiana's statute of repose; the action continued against the remaining defendants.
• Flynn v. AO Smith Water Prods. (2009). The court denied the ship owners' (American President Lines and Farrell Lines) summary judgment motion on the Jones Act and unseaworthiness claims, and granted it on the other causes of action, which plaintiffs did not oppose.
• Ballard v. Anchor Packing Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2009). The trial court partly granted the plaintiffs' motion to join twelve asbestos cases for trial, ordering two joint trials: nine mesothelioma cases first, then three lung cancer cases.
• In re New York City Asbestos Litigation v. AC & S., Inc. (2009). The court granted plaintiffs' motion in part, consolidating the Flynn, McNamara and Troiano cases for one joint trial and the Browne, Buschi, Cozzocrea and Mauro cases for a later joint trial, over the defendants' objections, while ordering the Dalton and Zeitler cases tried separately.
• Kofler v. AW Chesteron (2009). The trial court denied Goodyear's motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiffs' claim against Goodyear continues.
• Barnes v. AO Smith Water Products Co. (2008). The trial court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion for joint trials. It ordered Bougadis, Boyle, Priolo, Schnabel and Palmieri to be tried together and kept the Montross, Perdicaro, Enea and Iqbal cases separate, over the defendants' general opposition.
• Grossman v. AO Smith Water Products Co. (2008). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion and ordered the four asbestos cases tried jointly over the defendants' objections.
• Early v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2008). The court granted the plaintiffs' alternative request for joint trials, ordering three groups of cases tried together (Early, Peterson and Wilson; Toner and Zajack; Bauer, Curto, Garland and Turco) over the defendants' objections.
• Nostrom v. Chesterton (2008). The court granted summary judgment to defendant Sequoia Ventures, Inc. (formerly Bechtel Corporation) and dismissed the Nostrom plaintiffs' Labor Law 241(6) claims against it.
• Nostrom v. Chesterton (2008). The court granted summary judgment to Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation and dismissed the Nostrom plaintiffs' Labor Law 241(6) and 200 claims against it.
• Nostrom v. Chesterton (2008). The court granted summary judgment to defendant Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc., dismissing the Labor Law 241(6) claim brought by Judith Nostrom, individually and for the estate of Donald Nostrom.
• Aguirre v. Long IS. Rail RD. Co. (2007). The court denied the Long Island Rail Road's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and its motion to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence, but ordered a new trial on damages unless the three plaintiffs accepted reduced awards of $300,000 each; Harrington's cross-motion on apportionment was denied.
• Aguirre v. Long Island Railroad Co. (2007). The court denied the Long Island Rail Road's motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial on the weight of the evidence, but granted a new trial on damages unless the three plaintiffs agreed to reduce their awards to $150,000 for past and $150,000 for future pain and suffering each.
• Briggs v. General Electric Co. (Nassau, 2007). The court denied Robert A. Keasbey Co.'s summary judgment motion on the negligence and failure-to-warn claims but dismissed the strict products liability and breach of warranty claims against it, so plaintiffs won in part and Keasbey won in part.
• Caradonna v. AW Chesterton Co., Inc. (2007). The court denied the motion by the LIRR and MTA to dismiss plaintiff Caradonna's FELA negligence claim as preempted by the Locomotive Boiler Inspection Act, so the claim against the railroad went forward.
• Cepeda v. AC&S, Inc. (2007). The trial court denied Ford's and General Motors' motion to exclude the CCAR S/P2 training materials, granted their motion to exclude other CCAR web site material and the videotape, and granted plaintiff Cepeda's cross-motion to admit Ford's own training materials and the Rocker deposition.
• IN Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation (2007). The court denied DaimlerChrysler's motion to vacate the jury's finding of reckless disregard and its motion to reduce the $25,000,000 verdict or order a new trial, so the plaintiffs won.
• IN the Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. (2007). The court denied Chrysler's post-verdict motion to vacate the jury's finding of reckless disregard and to reduce the $25,000,000 verdict or order a new trial, so the plaintiffs, Alfred and Margaret D'Ulisse, kept the verdict.
• Lasky v. 63 West 38th Street, LLC (2007). The court granted in part the dental center's motion for a preliminary injunction, barring the building owner 63 West 38th Street, LLC from asbestos removal on the 5th floor during 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. until the parties agree on a time for the work.
• 8th Jud Dist Asbestos Litig (Erie, 2006). The court granted defendant Samuel, Son & Co.'s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended complaint and cross claims, finding it owed no duty of care to Susan Rindfleisch and no strict liability applied.
• Berger v. Amchem Prods. (2006). The court denied DaimlerChrysler's motions (joined by Ford and General Motors) to preclude evidence that brake and clutch dust causes asbestos disease, to dismiss the complaints, and for a Frye hearing, so the plaintiffs (Berger and Nygaard estates) prevailed.
• Dankenbrink v. Foster Wheeler (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2006). The court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate: it ordered joint trials of Dankenbrink, Gualdoni, Singer and Levine, and of Cettina and Goldstein. It tried Decibus and Rosato separately, severed Pieper and Eichner because maritime law is implicated, and denied the plaintiffs' request for reverse bifurcation, as the defendants had urged.
• DeMeyer v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (Matter of Asbestos Litig) (Wayne, 2005). The court found DaimlerChrysler had made a prima facie showing against plaintiff's experts, declined to decide the motion on the papers, and ordered a pre-trial Frye hearing where plaintiff (the estate) bears the burden; DaimlerChrysler's summary judgment motion was held in abeyance.
• Ak v. Aqua-Chem (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2005). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate eight asbestos personal injury and wrongful death actions for a joint trial, over the objections of defendants Kentile, Keyspan and Burnham.
• Polito v. Burns Int'l Services Corp. (Matter of Asbestos Litig.) (Monroe, 2003). The court denied the defendants' motions in limine to exclude workers' compensation and plant-condition evidence and the trade-association documents, but granted their motion to exclude Ralph Froehlich's deposition and affidavit as hearsay, so the ruling was split between plaintiff and defendants.
• Ballard v. Armstrong World Indus. (Matter of Seventh Jud. Dist. Asbestos Litig.) (Monroe, 2002). The court denied plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the Ballard and Cooros cases for trial, denied consolidation of the two deceased workers' claims with the living plaintiffs in Duemmel/Keller, severed Pschirrer's claim from Duemmel and allowed it to be consolidated with Keller, largely favoring the objecting defendants.
• Mtr. OF Nyc Asbestos Litig. (1997). The court granted Rapid-American's motion for a new trial on damages unless each plaintiff agreed to a reduced pain-and-suffering award, upheld its rulings on the interrogatories, jury charge and fault apportionment, and set aside the recklessness finding for the three pre-1947 plaintiffs (White, Gantcher, Mangialomini).
• Matter of Midland Ins. Co. (1994). The court held that Midland's 1975-1976 excess policy is triggered only when an injured person was exposed to asbestos during the policy period, regardless of when first exposure occurred, rejecting LAQ's continuous-trigger argument that injury progression alone triggers coverage.
• Fusaro v. Porter-Hayden Co. (1989). The trial court denied the motions by newly added defendants Asbestospray, APM, ACOA and Dana to dismiss the amended complaint as untimely, and denied the motions by H & A, Spraycraft, National Gypsum and Armstrong to strike the successor-liability allegations, so the plaintiff estate won and the amended complaint was deemed served.
• Campo v. Asbestospray Corp. (1988). The court granted the asbestos defendants' motions to dismiss the class action complaint, including derivative claims, and denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification as moot.