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
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).
PLAINTIFF SUED THE DEVELOPER OF PROPERTY ADJACENT TO PLAINTIFF’S BUILDING ALLEGING EXCAVATION WORK CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S BUILDING TO SETTLE AND LEAN; THE CITY ISSUED A STOP-WORK ORDER STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT; DEFENDANT-DEVELOPER THEN COUNTERCLAIMED ALLEGING PLAINTIFF WAS NEGLIGENT IN NOT MAINTAINING PLAINTIFF’S BUILDING SUCH THAT THE EXCAVATION WORK WOULD NOT DAMAGE IT, RESULTING IN THE STOP-WORK ORDER AND CAUSING THE DEVELOPER PURELY ECONOMIC LOSS OF AT LEAST $16 MILLION; SUPREME COURT LET THE COUNTERCLAIM STAND BUT THE FIRST DEPARTMENT DISMISSED IT; PLAINTIFF DID NOT OWE A DUTY TO THE DEVELOPER AND THE DEVELOPER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PURELY ECONOMIC DAMAGES (FIRST DEPT).
A RARE SITUATION WHERE SUSPENSION OF THE NONCUSTODIAL PARENT’S CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION WAS WARRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Negligence of Dog Owners In Calling A Dog Which Ran Into Bicyclist’s Path Is Actionable
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE FOR PLAINTIFF’S ARREST FOR THE CHARGED CRIMES OR FOR ANY UNCHARGED CRIMES; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF-NURSE WHO WAS ASSAULTED BY A PATIENT WAS A THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARY OF THE SECURITY-COMPANY CONTRACT AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF DETRIMENTALLY RELIED UPON A SECURITY GUARD’S PROMISE TO RESPOND TO HER CALL FOR HELP (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S OFFER TO PROVIDE FALSE TESTIMONY IN A SEPARATE ACTION IS NOT PROTECTED BY THE LITIGATION PRIVILEGE IN THIS RELATED ACTION ALLEGING DEFENDANT’S BREACHED A CONFIDENTIALITY AND NONDISPARAGEMENT AGREEMENT (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF’S WORK, DELIVERING TILES TO THE WORK SITE, WAS COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) AS “NECESSARY AND INCIDENTAL” TO THE PROTECTED CONSTRUCTION-ACTIVITY (FIRST DEPT).

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...