You are here: / Toxic Torts
, , ,

IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO ORDER AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IN THIS TOXIC TORT CASE; NO FRYE HEARING WAS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE EXPERTS DID NOT USE NOVEL OR EXPERIMENTAL METHODS; NO PARKER HEARING WAS NECESSARY BECAUSE GENERAL AND SPECIFIC CAUSATION WERE ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED IN THE EXPERTS’ SUBMISSIONS AND GENERALLY ACCEPTED METHODS WERE USED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Ceresa, determined there was no need for a Frye hearing in this toxic tort case because none of the three experts used methods that were novel or experimental. In addition, there was no need for a Parker hearing because the expert’s used generally accepted methods to determine general and specific causation. Therefore ordering the evidentiary hearing was an abuse of discretion:

“The singular purpose of a Frye hearing is to ascertain the reliability of novel scientific evidence by determining whether the methods used to generate such evidence will, when properly performed, produce results accepted as reliable within the scientific community generally” … . ” ‘A court need not hold a Frye hearing where it can rely upon previous rulings in other court proceedings as an aid in determining the admissibility of the proffered testimony’ ” … . “Absent a novel or experimental scientific theory, a Frye hearing is generally unwarranted” … . * * *

… [U]nder Parker, ” ‘[t]he focus moves from the general reliability concerns of Frye to the specific reliability of the procedures followed to generate the evidence proffered and whether they establish a foundation for the reception of the evidence at trial.’ . . . [In toxic tort cases,] [i]t is well-established that an opinion on causation should set forth a plaintiff’s exposure to a toxin, that the toxin is capable of causing the particular illness (general causation) and that plaintiff was exposed to sufficient levels of the toxin to cause the illness (specific causation)” (Parker v Mobil Oil Corp., 7 NY3d at 447-448 …). … [A] s plaintiffs’ [experts’] written submissions … offered the requisite causal links, there was no need for a hearing to determine whether these foundational standards were met. Marpe v Tonoga, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 07053, Third Dept 12-18-25

Practice Point: Consult this opinion for insight into when a Frye/Parker hearing is necessary to determine the admissibility of expert evidence in a toxic tort case. The evidentiary hearing had been ordered by the trial judge, but the Third Department held ordering the hearing was an abuse of discretion.

 

,

THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED PLAINTIFF IN THIS ASBESTOS-EXPOSURE CASE PROVED GENERAL AND SPECIFIC CAUSATION THROUGH EXPERT TESTIMONY; THE DISSENT ARGUED NEITHER CAUSATION ELEMENT WAS SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, affirming the denial of the defense motion to set aside the verdict in this asbestos-exposure case, determined plaintiff, through expert testimony, demonstrated both general and specific causation. The dissent found the causation evidence insufficient:

… [I]t is well established that, in cases involving exposure to asbestos or other toxins, ” ‘an opinion on causation should set forth a plaintiff’s exposure to a toxin, that the toxin is capable of causing the particular illness (general causation) and that plaintiff was exposed to sufficient levels of the toxin to cause the illness (specific causation)’ ” … . ” ‘[I]t is not always necessary for a plaintiff to quantify exposure levels precisely or use the dose-response relationship, provided that whatever methods an expert uses to establish causation are generally accepted in the scientific community’ ” … . Indeed, “there may be several ways” for an expert to demonstrate causation, but “any method used must be ‘generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community’ ” … .

From the dissent:

I do not believe that Joseph A. Skrzynski (plaintiff) established general causation, i.e., that exposure to chrysotile asbestos as a component of friction products can cause peritoneal mesothelioma, nor did plaintiff meet his burden of proof on specific causation, i.e., that he was exposed to sufficient levels of chrysotile asbestos to cause peritoneal mesothelioma. Thus, in my view, there is “no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences [that] could possibly lead rational people to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial,” and the verdict should be set aside on the ground that it is not supported by legally sufficient evidence … . Skrzynski v Akebono Brake Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 04322, Fourth Dept 7-25-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision and the dissent for insight into the proof requirements for general and specific causation in a toxic torts action. Plaintiff must prove the toxin (asbsestos in this case) is capable of causing the disease (mesothelioma in this case) and the toxin in fact caused plaintiff’s disease.

 

, , , ,

THE IDENTITIES OF THE SUBJECTS OF TWO SCHOLARLY ARTICLES LINKING TALCUM-POWDER PRODUCTS WITH MESOTHELIOMA SHOULD BE RELEASED; THE INFORMATION IS NOT PROTECTED BY HIPAA OR THE FEDERAL COMMON RULE; PRODUCTION OF THE INFORMATION WOULD NOT BE UNDULY BURDENSOME AND WOULD NOT DETER FUTURE RESEARCH (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court’s denial of a petition to enforce an out-of-state subpoena, determined the identities of the subjects of two scholarly articles linking cosmetic talcum powder products with mesothelioma were not protected by HIPAA’s privacy rule or the federal Common Rule:

The information sought by the subpoenas … is clearly relevant to the underlying New Jersey personal injury action. It goes directly to the credibility of these articles, which speak to the central issues in dispute and are relied on by three testifying experts, and whose author was to testify as an expert until she voluntarily withdrew … .

The information sought by the subpoenas is not protected from disclosure by HIPAA’s privacy rule, which does not apply where, as here, the health care providers did not provide physician services in connection with the articles and the subjects were never their patients … .

The information sought by the subpoenas is also not protected from disclosure by the federal Common Rule because the articles to which they relate fall within the exemption for secondary research based on publicly available identifiable private information or biospecimens … .The burden was on the party opposing the subpoenas to prove that this information was produced in the underlying litigations subject to a protective order … . Neither party opposing disclosure of the information has offered any such proof.

Production of the information sought by the subpoenas would not be unduly burdensome, nor is it likely to have a chilling effect on future medical research. The subject information consists of just a few pages, is easily located, does not concern ongoing research, and does not reveal the unpublished thought processes of the researchers. Moreover, the subjects never actually agreed to participate in any research, having released their information in connection with public litigation, and so it is unclear how allowing disclosure of their identities might deter future research participation … . Matter of Johnson & Johnson v Northwell Health Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 04909, First Dept 10-8-24

Practice Point: The decision outlines the issues involved in seeking the identities of the subjects of two scholarly articles linking talcum-powder products with mesothelioma.

 

,

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT ESTABLISH EITHER THE “GENERAL CAUSATION” OR “SPECIFIC CAUSATION” FRYE CRITERIA IN THIS MOLD-INJURY CASE (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s expert did not offer sufficient proof plaintiff’s injuries were caused by exposure to mold. Neither the “general causation” nor “specific causation” criteria established by Frye v United States, 293 F 101, were met:

General causation cannot be established through studies showing only a “risk” or “association” between mold exposure and the development of certain medical conditions … . The defendants’ expert relied on a position paper of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology published in 2006 … , that controverts the plaintiff’s expert’s theory of causation … . The scientific literature and testimony proffered by the plaintiff’s expert was insufficient to demonstrate that the plaintiff’s expert’s theory of general causation has gained general acceptance in the scientific community … . …

… [T]he method used by [plaintiff’s] expert to establish specific causation did not satisfy Frye. … [I]t is not enough for a plaintiff’s expert to testify that “exposure to a toxin is ‘excessive’ or ‘far more’ than others,” or to offer testimony “that merely links a toxin to a disease or ‘work[s] backwards from reported symptoms to divine an otherwise unknown concentration’ of a toxin” … . “… [W]e have never dispensed with a plaintiff’s burden to establish sufficient exposure to a substance to cause the claimed adverse health effect” … . “At a minimum, . . . there must be evidence from which the factfinder can conclude that the plaintiff was exposed to levels of th[e] agent that are known to cause the kind of harm that the plaintiff claims to have suffered” … . Buist v Bromley Co., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 01904, Second Dept 4–10-24

Practice Point: Here the expert evidence purporting to demonstrate plaintiff’s injuries were caused by exposure to mold did not satisfy the “general causation” or “specific causation” criteria established by Frye v United States, 293 F 101, criteria explained.

 

,

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE INSURER WAS TIMELY NOTIFIED OF THE ASBESTOS-EXPOSURE CLAIM AND WHEN THE INJURY-IN-FACT OCCURRED PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there are questions of fact whether the defendant insurer was timely notified of the claim in this asbestos-exposure case, and there are questions of fact, raised by conflicting expert evidence, about when the injury-in-fact occurred:

Defendant contends that the Meissners’ [plaintiffs’] delay of 68 days—from when they were first informed that Ridge Construction [defendant] had excess insurance policies issued by defendant to the date that the Meissners’ counsel wrote to provide defendant notice of the claim—was unreasonable as a matter of law. In response, plaintiff asserts that the delay was reasonable because the Meissners were not aware for the first 63 of those days that Ridge Construction had failed to provide defendant with notice. “The reasonableness of the delay in giving notice is ordinarily a question for the fact-finder” … .

* * * The parties … “dispute when an asbestos-related injury actually begins: plaintiff[ ] assert[s] that injury-in-fact occurs upon first exposure to asbestos, while defendant denies that assertion and instead maintains that injury-in-fact occurs only when a threshold level of asbestos fiber or particle burden is reached that overtakes the body’s defense mechanisms” … . Inasmuch as the parties here submitted conflicting expert opinions as to when the injury-in-fact occurs in an asbestos-related injury, summary judgment on that basis was not proper … . Meissner v Ridge Constr. Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 01445, Fourth Dept 3-15-24

Practice Point: Whether the insurer was timely notified of the asbestos-exposure claim is a question of fact which should not have been determined as a matter of law at the summary judgment stage.

Practice Point: Here conflicting expert evidence was presented about when the injury-in-fact occurs in an asbestos-exposure case. The issue should not have been determined as a matter of law at the summary judgment stage.

 

, , , ,

THE OWNER OF A COOPERATIVE BUILDING WAS PROPERLY FOUND LIABLE FOR FAILING TO REMEDIATE LEAD PAINT IN A SHAREHOLDER’S APARTMENT WHICH WAS SUBLET TO PLAINTIFF AND HER YOUNG DAUGHTER (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Oing, determined the owner of the building (Windsor) in which a cooperative shareholder, Sersch, sublet her cooperative apartment to plaintiff, had constructive knowledge plaintiff’s young daughter was living with plaintiff. Plaintiff’s daughter was diagnosed with lead poisoning and peeling lead paint was found in the apartment. Summary judgment finding Windsor liable for failing to remediate the lead paint problem was affirmed:

Windsor’s agents’ frequent and consistent interactions with plaintiff and the infant plaintiff were sufficient to provide constructive notice to Windsor … . Windsor failed to proffer an affidavit from any of the doormen stating that they did not know plaintiff and the infant plaintiff or were unaware of their residence. Under these circumstances, Windsor failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to the issue of constructive notice … . * * *

Windsor argues that section [NYC Administrative Code] 27-2056.15(c) exempts it from the duty to remediate and abate the lead paint in the apartment because Sersch “occupied” the apartment during plaintiffs’ subtenancy. Here, the terms of the sublease and the stipulation of settlement clearly indicate that the apartment was not “occupied” by Sersch during plaintiffs’ subtenancy. E.S. v Windsor Owners Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 00267, First Dept 1-23-24

Practice Point; Here the owner of a cooperative building was deemed liable under New York City law for failure to remediate lead paint in a shareholder’s apartment which had been sublet to plaintiff and her young daughter.

 

, , , , ,

UNDER THE JONES ACT OHIO HAD JURISDICTION TO APPOINT ADMINSTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF DECEDENT WHO ALLEGEDLY DIED OF EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS ON MERCHANT MARINE SHIPS; THE NEW YORK EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE WAS TIMELY AND PROPERLY SUBSTITUTED FOR THE OHIO ADMINISTRATORS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, in a complex decision which cannot be fairly summarized here, determined: (1) under the Jones Act Ohio had jurisdiction to appoint administrators for decedent who allegedly died from asbestos exposure on merchant marine ships where he was employed; and (2) substitution of a New York personal representative, executor of the estate, was proper and timely:

… [T]he Jones Act provides that when a seaman dies from an employment injury “the personal representative of the seaman may elect to bring a civil action at law, with the right of trial by jury, against the employer” (46 USC § 30104).

The Jones Act grants a right of action to the personal representative “without other description” … . The Act does not require that the personal representative be either “a domiciliary or ancillary administrator” … . A domiciliary administrator has standing to file a Jones Act or FELA [Federal Employers’ Liability Act] lawsuit in another state … . However, nothing “explicitly clothes a domiciliary administrator with the exclusive right to maintain such an action” because such a requirement is inconsistent with “the remedial nature” of FELA and the “representative character” of such a suit … .

Notably, the personal representative’s authority under the Jones Act derives from “a federal statutory right and power given to carry out the policy of the federal statutes” and “is not limited to the confines of the State where he was appointed but is co-extensive with general federal jurisdiction” … . Bartel v Maersk Line, Ltd., 2023 NY Slip Op 02058, First Dept 4-20-23

Practice Point: Under the Jones Act, the estate of a merchant-marine employee who died from exposure to asbestos on the employer’s ships may sue the employer. Here the suit was deemed properly started by administrators appointed by an Ohio court and the New York executor was properly and timely substituted for the Ohio administrators.

See also the companion decision: Bartel v Farrell Lines, 2023 NY Slip Op 02057, First Dept 4-20-23

 

,

DEFENDANT MANUFACTURED VALVES CONTAINING ASBESTOS; ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT HAD A SMALL OFFICE IN NYC THE VALVES WERE MANUFACTURED AND SOLD IN CONNECTICUT, WHERE PLAINTIFF LIVED AND WORKED; THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NEW YORK AND PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS WAS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR NEW YORK JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined New York did not have jurisdiction over plaintiff’s asbestos exposure action. Although the defendant manufacturer of valves containing asbestos had a small office in New York, defendant demonstrated that all the activity which related to the manufacture, sale and use of the valves took place in Connecticut. Plaintiff lived and worked exclusively in Connecticut as well:

… [T]here was no record evidence suggesting that defendant’s minimal activity in New York had an articulable nexus to plaintiff’s injury. … … [In addition] plaintiff did not offer a sufficient basis to justify jurisdictional discovery … . To the extent that defendant operated an executive and sales office out of the 100 Park Avenue office, this limited activity was not substantially related to plaintiff’s alleged exposure to asbestos while working with and around defendant’s valves in Connecticut and plaintiff does not identify any other activity by defendant in New York that could provide a sufficient nexus to his injury. Instead, all conduct giving rise to plaintiff’s claims occurred in Connecticut, as he was not a New York resident, did not purchase or work with defendant’s valves in New York, and does not claim to have suffered harm in this State … . Without an adequate relationship between New York and plaintiff’s claims, “specific jurisdiction is lacking regardless of the extent of a defendant’s unconnected activities in the State” … . Matter of New York Asbestos Litig., 2023 NY Slip Op 00402, First Dept 1-31-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff alleged exposure to asbestos in valves made by defendant caused his cancer. The valves were manufactured and sold in Connecticut where plaintiff lived and worked. Defendant’s small office in New York was not sufficiently connected with plaintiff’s claims to support New York jurisdiction.

 

, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT PLAINTIFF’S EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS WHEN MAINTAINING DEFENDANT’S PRODUCTS DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO PLAINTIFF’S ASBESTOS-INJURIES; AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE, IT IS NOT ENOUGH FOR DEFENDANT TO ARGUE PLAINTIFF COULD NOT PROVE CAUSATION (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department determined there were questions of fact whether plaintiff (Howard) was exposed to asbestos in his maintenance of defendant’s pumps on Navy submarines: Defendant failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that its products did not contribute to plaintiff’s asbestos-injuries:

“In order to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, defendant[] bore the initial burden of demonstrating that [its] respective products ‘could not have contributed to the causation’ of [Howard]’s asbestos-related injuries” … . Defendant could not prevail on its motion for summary judgment by “merely pointing to gaps in . . . plaintiff[s’] proof” … . In other words, “[defendant] could not simply argue that plaintiff[s] could not affirmatively prove causation, but rather it had to affirmatively prove, as a matter of law, that there was no causation” … .

… According to Howard [plaintiff], his duties aboard these various vessels required, among other things, that he directly supervise maintenance on defendant’s pumps, which included asbestos-containing gaskets, packing and insulation. Howard stated that he would work in the immediate vicinity of the pumps when the gaskets were removed and scraped from the pumps, and when packing and insulation on the pumps was removed and replaced. Howard v A.O. Smith Water Prods., 2023 NY Slip Op 00017, Third Dept 1-5-23

Practice Point: In a toxic tort case, in order to prevail on a summary judgment motion, defendant must demonstrate as a matter of law that defendant’s products did not cause plaintiff’s injuries. The defendant will not win a summary judgment motion in this context by arguing plaintiff could not prove causation.

 

, , ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT PRESENT EXPERT OPINION TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGATION HE INHALED SUFFICIENT AMOUNTS OF ASBESTOS TO HAVE CAUSED HIS CANCER; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff in this asbestos-exposure case did not raise a question of fact about whether his exposure to asbestos was sufficient to have caused his cancer. Plaintiff alleged he was exposed to asbestos when he installed defendant ABI’s vinyl floor tiles. Defendant presented evidence from simulation studies and plaintiff offered no expert evidence in opposition:

In Nemeth v Brenntag N. Am. (___ NY3d ___, 2022 NY Slip Op 02769 [2022]), the Court of Appeals, while recognizing its conclusion in Parker v Mobil Oil Corp. (7 NY3d 434 [2006]) that precise qualification of exposure to a toxin is not always required, stated that causation nonetheless requires plaintiff to provide proof of “sufficient exposure to a substance to cause the claimed adverse health effect” … . …

Plaintiff challenges the opinion proffered by ABI’s expert, who relied upon calculations arising from experiments funded by defendants, in determining that decedent was exposed, if at all, to asbestos in amounts similar to those in ambient air, an exposure insufficient to cause cancer. While the reliability of those calculations could pose an issue of credibility, the fact that they were performed by a paid expert does not automatically invalidate their conclusions. Plaintiff offered no expert to counter ABI’s calculation of decedent’s cumulative lifetime exposure, and thus no question of fact was raised as to its validity … . Killian v A.C. & S., Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 04610, First Dept 7-19-22

Practice Point: Here defendant presented evidence of simulation studies to show that plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos was not sufficient to have caused his cancer and plaintiff presented no expert evidence in opposition. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted.

 

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