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.

Federal district courts

U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York

• Connor v. Brann (2018). The court granted the New York City Department of Correction officials' motion to dismiss the pro se prisoner's asbestos-exposure claims, and allowed him until November 5, 2018 to file a proposed amended complaint.
• Grimes v. CBS Corporation (2018). The district court denied defendant Crane Co.'s Rule 19 motion to require plaintiffs to join the defendants they had sued in a parallel state court action.
• US v. Silver (2018). The district court denied Sheldon Silver's motion to dismiss the Superseding Indictment on retrial, ruling for the United States on the limitations, quid pro quo, Hobbs Act and forfeiture challenges.
• Donohue v. CBS Corporation (2017). The district court denied the Donohues' motion to remand the case to New York state court, allowing removal by CBS Corporation (Westinghouse) and Crane Co. under the federal officer removal statute to stand.
• Simmons v. City of New York (2017). The court granted the City of New York, Warden Durante and Commissioner Ponte judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the pro se inmate's claims because he had not exhausted administrative remedies.
• Holzworth v. Alfa Laval Inc. (2016). The district court granted Burnham LLC's unopposed motion for summary judgment on all six causes of action, ruling against the plaintiff estate, and directed entry of judgment for Burnham.
• Holzworth v. Alfa Laval Inc. (2016). The court granted Ingersoll-Rand's unopposed motion for summary judgment on all six claims, ruling for Ingersoll and against the plaintiff estate representative, because there was no evidence the decedent was exposed to an Ingersoll asbestos product.
• Unterberg v. ExxonMobil Oil Corp. (2016). The court granted ExxonMobil's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the widow's Jones Act, seaworthiness and maintenance-and-cure claims against it, because ExxonMobil was neither the decedent's employer nor the owner of the vessels.
• US v. Silver (2016). The court granted in part and denied in part Sheldon Silver's motion, continuing his bail pending appeal because McDonnell raised a substantial question, and staying the fine and forfeiture only partly, on condition of monthly payments and no dissipation of assets.
• US v. Silver (2016). The court denied Sheldon Silver's Rule 29 motion for acquittal and Rule 33 motion for a new trial, leaving his convictions for honest services fraud, extortion and money laundering in place for the United States.
• Relyea v. Borg-Warner Corp. (2015). The court denied the defendants' motion in limine to exclude plaintiff's expert Dr. Ohar's causation testimony, and declined to rule on the "every exposure counts" challenge because defendants had not shown she relied on it.
• US v. Silver (2015). The court denied Sheldon Silver's motion to dismiss the Hobbs Act extortion, honest services fraud and money laundering counts, and ordered the Government to provide a limited bill of particulars on the mailings and wires or show cause why not.
• Viera v. BASF Catalysts LLC (2015). The district court granted the defendants' (BASF, Superior Materials and Whittaker, Clark & Daniels) motion to transfer the widow's wrongful death action from the Southern District of New York to the Middle District of Florida over plaintiff Viera's objection.
• In re Quigley Company, Inc. (2011). The district court reversed the Bankruptcy Court and held that the Law Offices of Peter A. Angelos could pursue its Pennsylvania § 400 apparent-manufacturer claims against Pfizer, because the claims were outside the amended channeling injunction.
• Surre v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2011). The court granted Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment and dismissed with prejudice plaintiff John Surre's claims against Crane, holding Crane had no duty to warn about asbestos insulation it did not make or sell.
• Curry v. American Standard, Inc. (2009). The district court denied plaintiff Michael Curry's motion to remand, keeping the case in federal court on Foster Wheeler's federal officer removal.
• IN the Matter of United States Lines Inc. (2006). The district court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's order expunging the proofs of claim of merchant mariners Murphy, White and Keating as untimely under the Rolling Bar Date Order, in favor of the U.S. Lines Trust.
• Nesbiet v. General Electric Co. (2005). The court denied Nesbiet's motion to remand to state court, holding that General Electric properly removed the case under the federal officer removal statute, and ruled GE's stay motion moot.
• Pack v. Artuz (2004). The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and granted summary judgment to the prison officials (Artuz, Haponick, Richards and Gastin), dismissing inmate Charles Pack's asbestos-exposure complaint in its entirety.
• Crawford v. Artuz (2001). The district court granted summary judgment to the Green Haven prison officials and dismissed the inmates Crawford and McEachern's Eighth and First Amendment claims with prejudice.
• Hamilton v. Garlock, Inc. (2000). The court denied Atlas Turner's Rule 50 and 59 motions to set aside the roughly $4.29 million mesothelioma verdict or obtain a new trial, and granted Hamilton's motions for discovery and entry of judgment.
• Vasura v. Acands (2000). The court granted plaintiff Vasura's motion to remand to New York Supreme Court, holding that defendant Atlas Turner's removal under the FSIA and on diversity grounds was improper.
• Hamilton v. Garlock, Inc. (1998). After a jury verdict for the plaintiff widow, the court granted Atlas Turner's renewed motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding no waiver, and did not reach the other post-trial motions.
• Consorti v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp. (In Re Joint Eastern and Southern Dist. Asbestos) (1998). The court granted Owens Corning's motion for a new trial unless Consorti accepts a reduced pain and suffering award of $5 million (a $7 million remittitur), and denied Owens Corning's request to cut the award to $3.5 million.
• Ciletti v. Raymark Indus. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (1997). The court denied Raymark's motions for judgment as a matter of law, new trial and amendment of the judgment, and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motions, except that it set aside the McPadden award for loss of parental consortium.
• Conway v. Raymark Indus. (In re Asbestos Litigation) (1997). The court denied Raymark Industries' motion to dismiss, stay or transfer the asbestos actions of McPadden, Ciletti and Strafford, so the plaintiffs prevailed on the motion.
• Tabolt v. Flintkote Co. (In re New York Asbestos Litigation) (1994). The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' post-trial motions after the jury awarded over $47 million to the Tabolt, Consorti, Luchnick and Pulizzi plaintiffs: it ordered a new trial on fault allocation in Tabolt and on Mrs. Consorti's future non-economic consortium damages, cut several consortium awards, and on reargument reduced Pulizzi's funeral-expense award to $2,925, but otherwise left the verdicts in place.
• Maiorana v. United States Mineral Prods. Co. (In re Joint Eastern & Southern Dist. Asbestos Lit.) (1993). The district court granted the defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law, setting aside the $4,510,000 jury verdict for plaintiff Arlene Maiorana because her causation proof for colon cancer was insufficient; it also ruled that, if reversed on appeal, the damages would be reduced and indemnity and new-trial motions denied.
• In re Waterman SS Corp. (1993). The district court vacated the Bankruptcy Court's judgment for the asbestosis claimants (seamen) against Waterman Steamship and remanded for further findings on whether notice of the bar date was adequate to individual seamen who had shown symptoms.
• Barnett v. City of Yonkers (1990). The court granted summary judgment to the City of Yonkers and architect Eli Rabineau, denied the Board of Education's summary judgment motion, and dismissed the Board's cross-claim against U.S. Gypsum for lack of service while denying Gypsum's summary judgment and Rule 11 motions.
• Kaufman v. City of New York (1989). The court granted the City of New York's motion to dismiss the building owners' federal due process and takings claims, and dismissed their pendent state law claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• American Home Prod. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (1983). The court held that Liberty Mutual's policies are triggered by injury-in-fact during the policy period (neither exposure nor manifestation alone), so Liberty must defend American Home Products until it confines each claim, and it largely rejected both sides' summary judgment theories.

U.S. District Court, Western District of New York

• Castro v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (2021). The magistrate judge recommended granting summary judgment to Johnson & Johnson defendants because the Castros' claims over John's mesothelioma were time-barred under Virginia's two-year limitations period, and the derivative loss of consortium claim fell with them.
• Castro v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (2021). A magistrate judge recommended granting Revlon Holdings' motion for summary judgment, finding the Castros' claims time-barred under Virginia's two-year limitations period and Joyce's consortium claim not viable under Virginia law.
• Castro v. Johnson & Johnson (2021). The district court adopted the magistrate judge's unopposed recommendation and granted summary judgment to the Johnson & Johnson defendants, ruling against John and Joyce Castro, whose claims were time-barred.
• Castro v. Colgate-Palmolive Company (2020). The court adopted the magistrate judge's unopposed recommendation and denied CVS Pharmacy's motions to dismiss or transfer and for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the Castros' cross-motion to amend, all as moot after the Castros stipulated to dismiss CVS without prejudice.
• Castro v. Colgate-Palmolive Company (2020). The magistrate judge recommended denying as moot all three pending motions (CVS Pharmacy's two motions to dismiss or transfer and the Castros' cross-motion for leave to amend) because the Castros had dismissed CVS without prejudice, leaving the scheduling order in place.
• Castro v. Colgate-Palmolive Company (2020). The magistrate judge recommended denying John and Joyce Castro's motion to remand to state court, so Johnson & Johnson's snap removal stands.
• Byer v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (2015). The magistrate judge denied the defendants' joint motion to preclude Dr. Moline's January 2015 expert report and granted plaintiff Nijole Byer's motion to allow its late service, on conditions including supplemental depositions at plaintiff's cost.
• Mineweaser v. One Beacon America Insurance Company (2015). The court denied the excess insurers' motion to file their settlement agreements with Hedman under seal and subject to a protective order, and granted the plaintiffs' motion to compel production of those agreements.
• Garner v. Ngc Bodily Injury Trust (2012). The court granted the NGC Bodily Injury Trust's motion to dismiss the estate's personal injury, wrongful death and fraud claims, denied the plaintiff's motions to amend and to file a sur-reply as futile, and directed judgment for the Trust.
• Tycz v. Asbeka Industries OF New York, Inc. (2012). The district court granted James Tycz's motion to remand the case to New York state court, finding Blodgett had not shown the non-diverse New York defendants were fraudulently joined, and denied his request for costs.
• Garner v. Dii Industries, LLC (2011). The district court granted the motions of DII Industries, the DII Industries Asbestos PI Trust, and the trustees to dismiss the estate's asbestos death claim as time-barred, denied the plaintiffs' motion to amend as futile, and directed judgment for the defendants.
• Hall v. Kodak Occupational Accidental Death Insurance Plan (2011). The court granted the defendants' (Kodak plans') motion to dismiss and dismissed the widow's ERISA claims for accidental death and survivor health benefits.
• Garner v. Dii Industries, LLC (2010). The court granted the defendants' (DII Industries asbestos trust and its trustee and executive director) motion to dismiss because the plaintiff's amended complaint pleaded no basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, and it directed judgment for the defendants.

Federal bankruptcy courts

U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York

• In re Johns-Manville Corp. (2016). The bankruptcy court granted Graphic Packaging International's motion and enjoined Lynda Berry's Louisiana state-court asbestos suit against Graphic as successor to MFP, ruling that her only recourse is a claim to the Manville Trust.
• In re Johns-Manville Corporation (2015). The bankruptcy court granted Marsh USA's motion to enforce the 1986 Manville orders, holding that Salvador Parra Jr.'s conspiracy claims against Marsh were barred by the channeling injunction and denying him discovery.
• In re Quigley Company, Inc. (2010). The bankruptcy court denied confirmation of Quigley's Fourth Plan, which the Ad Hoc Committee of Tort Victims and the U.S. Trustee had opposed. It also granted in part Quigley's motion to exclude parts of Dr. Shaked's expert evidence, denied the motion to seal the Pfizer settlement information, and overruled the U.S. Trustee's objection to the Street Employment Motion.
• In re Quigley Co., Inc. (2008). The bankruptcy court overruled the Ad Hoc Committee of Tort Victims' objection to Quigley's ballot, holding that claimants in the tort reform states hold bankruptcy "claims" and may vote without supplying the additional information the Committee requested.
• In re Quigley Co., Inc. (2007). The bankruptcy court approved Quigley's disclosure statement, holding that placing settling and non-settling asbestos claimants in one class did not make the plan unconfirmable as a matter of law, and rejecting the Ad Hoc Committee of Tort Victims' objection on that point while leaving other confirmation issues for an evidentiary hearing.