You are here: / / PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE PROPERLY SET ASIDE, INSUFFICIENT...
,

PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE PROPERLY SET ASIDE, INSUFFICIENT PROOF PLAINTIFF WAS EXPOSED TO DANGEROUS LEVELS OF ASBESTOS EMANATING FROM DEFENDANT’S PRODUCTS.

 

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, over a two-justice dissenting opinion, determined the plaintiff’s verdict in this asbestos/mesothelioma case was properly set aside by the trial court. The First Department held the plaintiff’s experts did not present sufficient proof plaintiff’s decedent was exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos emanating from defendant’s products while working as an auto mechanic:

… [T]he fact that asbestos, or chrysotile, has been linked to mesothelioma, is not enough for a determination of liability against a particular defendant; a causation expert must still establish that the plaintiff was exposed to sufficient levels of the toxin from the defendant’s products to have caused his disease … . Even if it is not possible to quantify a plaintiff’s exposure, causation from exposure to toxins in a defendant’s product must be established through some scientific method, such as mathematical modeling based on a plaintiff’s work history, or comparing the plaintiff’s exposure with that of subjects of reported studies … .

The evidence presented by plaintiff here was insufficient because it failed to establish that the decedent’s mesothelioma was a result of his exposure to a sufficient quantity of asbestos in friction products sold or distributed by defendant Ford Motor Company. Plaintiff’s experts effectively testified only in terms of an increased risk and association between asbestos and mesothelioma … , but failed to either quantify the decedent’s exposure levels or otherwise provide any scientific expression of his exposure level with respect to Ford’s products … . Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 2017 NY Slip Op 01523, 1st Dept 2-28-17

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE PROPERLY SET ASIDE, INSUFFICIENT PROOF PLAINTIFF WAS EXPOSED TO DANGEROUS LEVELS OF ASBESTOS FROM DEFENDANT’S PRODUCTS)/TOXIC TORTS (ASBESTOS, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE PROPERLY SET ASIDE, INSUFFICIENT PROOF PLAINTIFF WAS EXPOSED TO DANGEROUS LEVELS OF ASBESTOS FROM DEFENDANT’S PRODUCTS)/ASBESTOS (PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE PROPERLY SET ASIDE, INSUFFICIENT PROOF PLAINTIFF WAS EXPOSED TO DANGEROUS LEVELS OF ASBESTOS FROM DEFENDANT’S PRODUCTS)/EXPERT OPINION (PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE PROPERLY SET ASIDE, INSUFFICIENT PROOF PLAINTIFF WAS EXPOSED TO DANGEROUS LEVELS OF ASBESTOS FROM DEFENDANT’S PRODUCTS)

You might also like
IN THIS QUI TAM (WHISTLEBLOWER) ACTION THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED DEFENDANT CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY FILED FALSE TAX RETURNS AND TERMINATED THE WHISTLEBLOWER FOR RAISING HIS CONCERNS WITH HIS SUPERIORS (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT IN THIS GRAND LARCENY CASE WAS DETAINED BY STORE SECURITY GUARDS; DEFENSE COUNSEL FIRST LEARNED THE IDENTITY OF ONE OF THE STORE’S SECURITY PERSONNEL ON THE EVE OF THE HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE SECURITY GUARDS WERE LICENSED TO EXERCISE POLICE POWERS OR WERE AGENTS OF THE POLICE; THEREFORE DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST FOR AN ADJOURNMENT TO SUBPOENA THE STORE’S EMPLOYMENT POLICIES AND OTHER EMPLOYMENT INFORMATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Failure to Mention the Rate of Compensation Required Dismissal of the Contract Cause of Action Under the Statute of Frauds/However the Allegation Defendant Employed Plaintiff Was Sufficient to Allow the Quantum Meruit Cause of Action to Go Forward
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RESIDENT EXERCISED INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, MAKING THE RESIDENT AND HOSPITAL POTENTIALLY LIABLE (FIRST DEPT).
Release Time Certificates, Allowing Full Pay for Police Officers Doing Union Work, Properly Rescinded Based Upon the Indictment of the Officers
DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE, RELEVANT LAW CLEARLY EXPLAINED.
PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON A TEMPORARY ORDER OF PROTECTION (TOP) WHICH BARRED HER FROM HER OWN APARTMENT WHERE HER CHILDREN LIVED; THE APPEAL WAS HEARD AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (FIRST DEPT).
COMPLAINTS ALLEGING THE DELIVERY OF FUEL OIL MIXED WITH WASTE OIL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, THE COMPLAINTS STATED BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY CAUSES OF ACTION.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

COMMON CARRIERS DO NOT HAVE A DUTY TO KEEP BUS STEPS FREE OF SNOW TRACKED IN... UNWARNED STATEMENT PRECEDED MIRANDIZED STATEMENT BY TEN MINUTES, MOTION TO SUPPRESS...