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

• Peterson v. Vanderbilt Mineral (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). On renewal, the court vacated its earlier grant of summary judgment to Vanderbilt Mineral, denied Vanderbilt's summary judgment motion including on punitive damages, and denied its motion to change venue, so plaintiffs Stanley and Debby Peterson won and the case was restored to the trial calendar.
• Conaway v. ABB (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The court denied defendant ABB, Inc.'s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, for forum non conveniens, so the plaintiffs (Glenda Conaway and the estate) prevailed on the motion.
• English v. Johnson & Johnson (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The court denied plaintiffs' motion to reargue and renew its July 2019 order dismissing the case against Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. for lack of personal jurisdiction, and declined to consider plaintiffs' late supplementary letter and exhibits.
• Hardman v. Revlon (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The court denied plaintiffs' motion to vacate the Special Master's recommendation, confirming that Revlon, Revlon Consumer Products and Bristol-Myers Squibb need not name their fact witnesses at this stage, and denied the defendants' cross-motion to transfer as moot.
• Germain v. The Neslemur Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The trial court denied defendant Neslemur's motion to dismiss for improper service and lack of personal jurisdiction, so plaintiffs' claims against Neslemur continue.
• Mauro v. John E. Potente & Sons (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The trial court granted John E. Potente & Sons' motion for summary judgment only to the extent of dismissing the punitive damages claims (withdrawn by stipulation) and denied the rest, so plaintiffs' claims and the cross-claims against Potente remain.
• Mauro v. Kennedy Electrical Supply, Corp. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The trial court denied Kennedy Electrical Supply Corp.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint and cross-claims, finding a fact issue on whether the decedent was exposed to asbestos products Kennedy sold to Con Ed.
• Peterson v. Vanderbilt Minerals (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The court granted Vanderbilt Minerals, LLC summary judgment dismissing the Petersons' claims and all cross-claims because plaintiffs' expert reports were not in admissible form, but denied its forum non conveniens dismissal request.
• Mauro v. Consolidated Edison of New York (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The court denied Consolidated Edison's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Mauro plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims, finding triable issues of fact on the Labor Law § 200, common-law negligence and § 241(6) claims.
• Slonim v. J & R Film Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The court granted J&R Film Co. and Magnasync/Moviola Corporation's motion to renew only to the extent of ordering plaintiffs to provide a testing protocol, denied renewal and reversal otherwise, and kept the order for joint testing of defendants' Moviola machines, so plaintiffs largely prevailed.
• Rivera v. Ericksson (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The trial court denied Ericksson, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, which sought dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims, because it did not make a prima facie showing on causation.
• Rivera v. Meriden Molded Plastic (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The trial court denied Meriden Molded Plastic Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiffs' claims and the cross-claims against it continue.
• Jackson v. Henry Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The trial court denied Henry Company's motion for summary judgment, so the estate's claims against Henry go forward to trial.
• Rothlein v. Whittaker Clark & Daniels (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The court granted Whittaker Clark & Daniels' summary judgment motion only as to talc supplied to Johnson & Johnson and Colgate-Palmolive (unopposed), and denied it as to talc supplied for Old Spice, Mennen and Clubman powders, so plaintiffs' claims on those products continue.
• Salzano v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The trial court denied Kaiser Gypsum Company's motion for summary judgment, so the executor's and Frances Salzano's claims against it proceed.
• Germain v. Whittaker Clark & Daniels (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The trial court granted Whittaker Clark & Daniels summary judgment only on claims about talc sold to American International Industries, Johnson & Johnson and Colgate-Palmolive, and denied it on claims about talc sold to Neslemur for Clubman talcum powder, so the plaintiffs' claims on that talc continue.
• Rivera v. General Electric Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The trial court denied General Electric's motion for summary judgment on workers' compensation exclusivity grounds and, alternatively, on punitive damages, so plaintiffs' claims against GE proceed.
• Koenig v. Pneumo Abex (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The court granted Pneumo Abex LLC's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, dismissed the complaint and cross-claims against it, and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for jurisdictional discovery.
• Richards v. American Biltrite (Matter of Eighth Jud. Dis. Asbestos) (Erie, 2020). The court denied American Biltrite's motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiff's claim over the Amtico floor tiles goes to trial.
• Fletcher v. Clinique Laboratories (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The trial court denied the Estee Lauder and Clinique defendants' motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, so plaintiffs Hannah and Duncan Fletcher's New York action continued.
• Montell v. Viking Pump (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The court granted Viking Pump, Inc.'s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, severed and dismissed the complaint and cross-claims against it, and denied plaintiff's cross-motion for jurisdictional discovery.
• Stiglitz v. Homasote Co. (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2020). The trial court denied Homasote Company's motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims, so the plaintiffs (the estate and widow) prevailed on the motion.
• Lanza v. Kaiser Gypsum Co. (Matter of Nyc Asbestos Litig) (2020). The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a joint trial of the Lanza and Kranichfeld actions against Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., over the defendant's objection.
• Olson v. Brenntag N. Am., Inc. (2020). The trial court denied Johnson & Johnson's motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial on liability, but vacated the damages awards and ordered a new trial on damages unless the Olsons accept reduced compensatory and punitive awards.
• Sargent v. Paccar, Inc. (Albany, 2020). The court denied PACCAR Inc.'s (Peterbilt's) motion for summary judgment dismissing the Sargent plaintiffs' complaint and cross claims, finding the defendant did not meet its initial burden and that fact issues remained.
• Schrank v. Amchem Prods., Inc. (2020). The trial court granted Ford Motor Company's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint and cross claims against Ford, finding the plaintiffs' experts failed to show specific causation.
• Allen v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. (2019). The trial court denied defendant Armstrong Pumps Company's (Aurora) motion for summary judgment, so plaintiff Lorraine Allen's claims and all cross-claims against Aurora stayed in the case.
• Alleyne v. AO Smith Water Prods. Co. (2019). The court denied, with leave to renew, defendant Chanel, Inc.'s motion for an open commission to subpoena four out-of-state nonparty sellers of the talcum powder samples tested by plaintiff's expert, so plaintiff prevailed on the motion.
• Lattanzio v. Rockwell Automation (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The court denied Rockwell Automation, as successor to Allen-Bradley, summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' complaint and cross-claims, so plaintiffs Philip and Kathleen Lattanzio won the motion.
• Rothlein v. American Int'l Indus. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The court granted American International Industries summary judgment only for decedent's alleged exposure to Clubman talc from 1982 through August 13, 1987, and denied the motion for the period from August 13, 1987 through 1995, including on punitive damages, so plaintiffs' remaining claims continue.
• Germain v. American Int'l Indus. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The court granted American International Industries' motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims and cross-claims against it, ruling against the plaintiffs, the estate of Michelle Germain and her husband.
• Rosen v. Fisher Scientific Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The trial court denied Fisher Scientific Company, LLC's motion for summary judgment (and its alternative request for a hearing on plaintiff's experts' methodology), so plaintiff Michael Rosen's claims against Fisher go forward.
• Nelson v. Holley Performance Prods. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The court granted Holley Performance Products' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, severing and dismissing the Nelsons' complaint and cross-claims against Holley without prejudice, and denied the alternative request for a more definite statement as untimely.
• Hardman v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The court dismissed the plaintiffs' fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy/concert action claim against Bristol-Myers Squibb, denied the rest of BMS's motion to strike the complaint, and left the other causes of action in place.
• Slonim v. J & R Film Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The court granted third-party plaintiffs J&R Film Co. and Magnasync/Moviola Corporation leave to amend their third-party complaint to add Johnson & Johnson entities as third-party defendants, rejecting J&J's res judicata, prejudice and severance arguments.
• Alleyne v. Chanel (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The court denied plaintiff Beverley Alleyne's motion to compel Chanel, Inc. to produce its Chanel No. 5 fragrance formulas from 1924 to 2017 or, alternatively, to bar Chanel from challenging the authenticity of the samples her expert tested.
• Alder v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate five mesothelioma cases into two trial groups, ordered all five tried individually, and set trial conferences for the living plaintiffs and placed the deceased plaintiffs' cases on the list.
• Proctor v. Burnham (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The court denied Burnham LLC's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Proctors' complaint and all cross-claims, so plaintiffs prevailed on the motion.
• Rosen v. Genuine Parts Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The court granted Genuine Parts Company's and National Automotive Parts Association's motion to dismiss plaintiff Michael Rosen's claims and all cross-claims against them for lack of personal jurisdiction, and severed and dismissed them.
• Carlstrand v. American Biltrite (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The court denied defendant American Biltrite, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims, finding fact issues on general and specific causation.
• Carlstrand v. Mannington Mills (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The trial court denied defendant Mannington Mills, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims, so the plaintiffs' claims against it continue.
• Rosen v. VWR Int'l (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The court denied defendant VWR International's motion to vacate the note of issue, so plaintiff Michael Rosen's case stays trial-ready and VWR must finish any remaining discovery before trial.
• Carlstrand v. Domco Prods. of Texas (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The court denied Domco Products of Texas's motion for summary judgment on causation, so the claims against it continue, but granted it summary judgment dismissing the punitive damages claim against it.
• Gladyszewski v. Whittaker, Clark & Daniels (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The court granted Whittaker, Clark & Daniels' summary judgment motion only as to claims about talc supplied to Colgate-Palmolive, and denied it as to talc supplied to Kaiser Gypsum for joint compound, so those claims proceed against WCD.
• English v. Johnson & Johnson (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The court granted Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.'s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims against them for lack of personal jurisdiction, ruling against plaintiffs English and Raso.
• Serrano v. Superior Boiler Works (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The court denied Superior Boiler Works, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, so plaintiffs Sonia Serrano and the estate of Salomon Serrano may take their claims against it to trial.
• Surace v. American Biltrite (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The trial court denied American Biltrite, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the Surace plaintiffs' complaint and all cross-claims, finding fact issues on general and specific causation.
• Djokic v. Steel Grip (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The court denied Steel Grip's summary judgment motion on causation but granted it as to the spousal loss of consortium claim, dismissing Venetia Kontogouris's individual claim; plaintiffs largely prevailed.
• Hernandez v. Whittaker, Clark & Daniels (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The court granted Whittaker, Clark & Daniels' summary judgment motion only for claims after 2004 and for talc sold to Johnson & Johnson for Baby Powder in 1976-1983, and denied it otherwise, so plaintiffs' claims over talc supplied to Avon for 1960-2004 and punitive damages go to trial.
• Peralta v. Cyprus Amax Minerals Co. (In re New York City Asbestos Litigation) (2019). The court denied plaintiffs' motion to reargue and, on reargument, to vacate its March 11, 2019 order dismissing Cyprus Amax Minerals Company for lack of personal jurisdiction, so CAMC stayed dismissed.