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 appeals courts

New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division

• Krok v. The Nash Engineering Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (1st Dept., 2017). The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the trial court's denial of Nash Engineering Company's motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiff estate's claim against Nash continued.
• Mtr OF Nyc Asbestos Litig. (1st Dept., 2017). The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment for Ford Motor Company, upholding the trial court's order setting aside the jury's verdict for plaintiff Mary Juni, and dismissed the appeal from the order as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.
• O'connor v. Aerco International, Inc. (3rd Dept., 2017). The Appellate Division reversed the three orders that had granted summary judgment to Fisher Scientific, Thomas Scientific and VWR International, and denied their motions, so the plaintiffs' claims against them continue.
• North v. National Grid Generation (IN the Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (1st Dept., 2016). The First Department affirmed the jury judgment for plaintiff against National Grid ($3.5 million for future pain and suffering), and modified the indemnification order so National Grid also recovers attorneys' fees for defending plaintiff's action against O'Connor, otherwise affirming.
• Sweberg v. Crane Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (1st Dept., 2016). The First Department reversed the order on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim, granting the defendants' motion and dismissing the complaint on that claim. It also upheld the jury's verdict against Crane Co. on failure to warn and recklessness, but found the future pain and suffering award materially excessive to an extent the text does not state.
• Hackshaw v. Crane Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (1st Dept., 2016). The First Department affirmed the jury verdict for plaintiff Dorcas Hackshaw (executrix of Selwyn Hackshaw) against Crane Co. on liability, but found the award for past pain and suffering excessive and reduced it to the extent indicated (the figure is not in the text).
• Wells v. 3M Co. (3rd Dept., 2016). The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order granting summary judgment to defendants Genuine Parts Company and National Automotive Parts Association, and denied their motion, so plaintiff Linda Wells's claim survives.
• Finerty v. Abex Corp. (1st Dept., 2015). The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Ford USA's motion for summary judgment, but reversed the denial of Ford UK's motion and dismissed the complaint against Ford UK for lack of personal jurisdiction.
• Hockler v. William Powell Company (1st Dept., 2015). The Appellate Division reversed the denial of summary judgment, granted The William Powell Company's motion, and dismissed plaintiff Bryan Hockler's complaint.
• Andrucki v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (1st Dept., 2015). On remittitur from the Court of Appeals, the First Department affirmed the $2,500,000 judgment for plaintiffs against the Port Authority, which had defaulted by not appearing at trial, without an inquest on damages.
• Berensmann v. Georgia-Pacific (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (1st Dept., 2014). The appellate court dismissed the claims about Georgia-Pacific's wallboards because it never made asbestos wallboard, but otherwise affirmed the denial of Georgia-Pacific's summary judgment motion, so plaintiffs' joint compound claims proceed.
• Konstantin v. Tishman Liquidating Corp. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (1st Dept., 2014). The Appellate Division affirmed both jury-verdict judgments for the plaintiffs (Konstantin against Tishman Liquidating Corporation, Dummitt against Crane Co.) and dismissed the appeal from the order denying Crane's post-trial motion as subsumed in the judgment appeal; one justice, joined by another, dissented in part as to Dummitt.
• DiSalvo v. Neles-Jamesbury (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (1st Dept., 2014). The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of summary judgment to Neles-Jamesbury, Inc., holding it had not met its initial burden, so plaintiff Carl DiSalvo prevailed on the appeal.
• Fersch v. Volkswagen Group of America (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (1st Dept., 2013). The First Department affirmed the trial court's order consolidating the Juni, Fersch and Middleton cases for trial, ruling against Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., which had appealed.
• Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. (1st Dept., 2013). The First Department reversed the judgment awarding plaintiffs damages against the Port Authority, vacated it, denied plaintiffs' default judgment motion, and granted the Port Authority's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation v. Baxter Healthcare Corporation (1st Dept., 2013). The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order consolidating the three plaintiffs' cases for trial, rejecting Volkswagen Group of America's challenge to consolidation.
• Bernard v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (IN the Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.) (1st Dept., 2012). The First Department affirmed the trial court's order consolidating the three plaintiffs' actions against Colgate-Palmolive for a joint trial, rejecting Colgate-Palmolive's challenge.
• Matter of Kirisits v. Durez Plastics/occidental (3rd Dept., 2012). The Appellate Division affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision discharging the Special Fund for Reopened Cases from liability, so the employer and its carrier remained liable for the widow's death benefit claim.
• Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. (1st Dept., 2012). The First Department affirmed the trial court's order consolidating the three plaintiffs' actions against Colgate-Palmolive for a joint trial, rejecting Colgate-Palmolive's appeal.
• US Fid. & Guaranty Co. v. American Re-Ins. Co. (1st Dept., 2012). The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of about $420 million for USF&G against reinsurers American Re and ECRA (and its pool members), holding they must follow USF&G's loss allocation and that no issue of fact existed on the retention; one justice dissented.
• Penn v. Amchem Products (1st Dept., 2011). The Appellate Division held that the trial court was wrong and that the evidence was enough for the jury to find Kerr Corporation liable to plaintiff Penn. It rejected Kerr's unpreserved challenges, noted the damage awards deviate from reasonable compensation under CPLR 5501(c), and recalled and vacated its May 2010 decision.
• Penn v. Amchem Products (1st Dept., 2010). The Appellate Division held that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find Kerr distributed the asbestos dental liners Penn used, rejecting the trial court's contrary finding in Kerr's favor, and ruled that the damage awards deviated from reasonable compensation.
• Charlop v. AO Smith Water Prods. (1st Dept., 2009). The First Department held that the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting plaintiff Charlop's motion to vacate a stipulation, in an appeal by defendant Kohler Co., and ordered dismissal of the action as to Kohler.
• IN the Matter of Mlodozeniec v. Trio Asbestos Removal Corp. (3rd Dept., 2009). The Appellate Division reversed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision that State Insurance Fund was the liable carrier, holding that Zurich, Trio's insurer on the date of disablement, must pay, and remitted the matter to the Board.
• Continental Casualty Co. v. Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau (1st Dept., 2008). The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's judgment after a nonjury trial and declared for the insurers (Continental Casualty and American Casualty, together CNA) against the defendant class of asbestos claimants: the claims fall within products hazard/completed operations coverage, laches and other defenses apply, coverage is triggered by injury-in-fact, and excess policy RDU 8047261 is exhausted.
• Matter of Anne Lautenschuetz v. AP Greene Industries, Inc. (3rd Dept., 2008). The Appellate Division modified Supreme Court's order, reversing nunc pro tunc approval of all settlements except the April 2007 Amotex Trust settlement, so CNA Insurance largely won and the widow lost on the earlier settlements.
• Held v. AW Chesterton Co. (1st Dept., 2007). The Appellate Division affirmed the ruling in favor of Sequoia Ventures (formerly Bechtel), the respondent engineer, and rejected the plaintiff's claims against it.
• Croteau v. Treadwell Corp. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (1st Dept., 2007). The Appellate Division affirmed the order granting Con Edison contractual indemnification against Treadwell for sums paid to Croteau, rejecting Treadwell's arguments.
• Held v. Sequoia Ventures (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (1st Dept., 2007). The Appellate Division affirmed the ruling in favor of Sequoia Ventures (formerly Bechtel), rejecting the plaintiff executrix's claim that the engineer's insulation specifications caused her husband's mesothelioma.
• Barbara Commarata v. Cook, Inc. (3rd Dept., 2005). The Appellate Division affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision that Merchants Mutual Insurance Company was Azor Drywall's carrier, so the appellants Azor and Merchants lost and the widow's death benefits claim stood.
• IN the Matter of Cammarata v. Caldwell & Cook, Inc. (3rd Dept., 2005). The Appellate Division affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision that Jack Cammarata's death from mesothelioma was work-related and that Merchants Mutual Insurance Company, Azor Drywall's carrier, was liable, so the claimant won and Azor and Merchants lost.
• Langhorne v. Amchem Prods., Inc. (1st Dept., 2005). The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, holding the plaintiff's claims against the defendants-respondents were barred by releases the decedent signed in settling an earlier federal asbestosis action.
• Holdampf v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (1st Dept., 2004). The Appellate Division modified the order, reinstating plaintiffs' negligence claim against the Port Authority, which had won summary judgment below, and remanded for further proceedings; the rest of the order was affirmed.
• Diedrich v. Robert A. Keasbey Co. (IN the Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (1st Dept., 2004). The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of summary judgment to Robert A. Keasbey Company, so the executrix's claims go to trial.
• Lustenring v. AC&S, Inc. (1st Dept., 2004). The Appellate Division affirmed the jury verdicts for the plaintiffs against defendant John Crane, Inc., finding the evidence sufficient, no Frye hearing required, and damages not excessive.
• Root v. Eastern Refractories Co., Inc. (4th Dept., 2004). The Appellate Division reversed the order granting summary judgment to Eastern Refractories Co., denied the motion, and reinstated the executor's complaint against Eastern.
• Matter of Conway v. Cbi Services, Inc. (3rd Dept., 2003). The Appellate Division affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision holding CBI Services and its carrier National Union liable on the widow's death benefits claim, rejecting their due process, evidence and settlement-consent arguments.
• Matter of Drewes v. Steel (3rd Dept., 2003). The Appellate Division affirmed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision that Lumbermens had an enforceable lien and that the State Insurance Fund forfeited further reimbursement from Lumbermens by not obtaining its consent to the third-party settlements.
• Matter of O'malley v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York (3rd Dept., 2003). The Appellate Division reversed the Workers' Compensation Board's decision disallowing the widow's death benefits claim against Consolidated Edison and remitted the matter to the Board for further proceedings.
• Plumb v. AC and S., Inc. (3rd Dept., 2003). The Appellate Division affirmed the order setting aside the jury's apportionment of 98% of fault to General Electric, a ruling that left Sears, Roebuck, the appellant, responsible for the verdict; two justices concurred and one dissented.
• Chrabas v. Owens-Illinois (Matter of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation) (4th Dept., 2000). The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order denying Owens-Illinois's motion to apply Florida law to loss allocation issues and directing that New York law apply, so the plaintiffs prevailed on the choice-of-law question.
• Bille v. Hedman Resources (Matter of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation v Hedman Resources, Ltd.) (4th Dept., 2000). The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Hedman Resources' motion for summary judgment, leaving plaintiff Bille's mesothelioma action alive, and dismissed the appeal in Action No. 2 upon stipulation.
• Matter of Midland Insurance Company (1st Dept., 2000). The court modified the Supreme Court order: coverage is triggered by inhalation exposure (first or continued) but not by exposure "in residence"; the Highlands $17.5 million reduction was vacated and other "Other Insurance" declarations were changed in part for the Superintendent and in part for LAQ; as modified, affirmed.
• Ronsini v. Worthington Corp. (Matter Of New York City Asbestos Litigation. Elaine Ronsini V. Garlock, Inc.) (1st Dept., 1998). The Appellate Division rejected the challenges by Worthington Corporation and John Crane, Inc. to the jury verdicts for the plaintiffs, and declined to disturb the liability findings, the apportionments or the damages awards as reduced by the trial court.
• Perry v. City of New York (1st Dept., 1998). The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's denial of the widow's motion, ruling she should have been allowed to amend the notice of claim to add a wrongful death cause of action against the City of New York.
• Dollas v. WR Grace & Co. (1st Dept., 1996). The Appellate Division reversed the grants of summary judgment to W.R. Grace against plaintiffs Dollas and Gargano, finding a fact question on whether the decedents were exposed to Grace's Monokote.
• Reid v. Georgia-Pac. Corp. (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.
• Zalinka v. Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. (3rd Dept., 1995). The appellate court affirmed the judgment entered on the jury verdict for plaintiffs John Zalinka and his wife against Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, which lost its appeal.
• Didner v. Keene Corp. (1st Dept., 1993). The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment requiring Keene Corporation to pay its 15% share of the reduced verdict to plaintiff Marlene Didner, rejecting Keene's argument that it owed nothing after setoffs for the Manville settlement.
• Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. (1st Dept., 1993). The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's rulings: it upheld the preclusion of the defendant's relitigation of a point decided in prior litigation, the five additurs, and the exclusion of evidence about the cause of Sutton's death, so the defendant lost.