You are here: / Toxic Torts
, ,

DEFENDANT’S SUBCONTRACTOR USED A PAINT STRIPPING PRODUCT DURING AN OFFICE BUILDING RENOVATION, PLAINTIFF, AN EVENING OFFICE CLEANER, ALLEGED INJURY FROM BREATHING TOXIC FUMES, THERE IS EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HAD A DUTY TO WARN, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this toxic tort case was properly denied. Plaintiff, an evening cleaner in an office building, allege she was injured by inhaling toxic fumes from a paint stripping product used by a defendant’s subcontractor (Island Painting):

Defendant failed to establish prima facie that it did not have actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition of the premises in time to take corrective measures … . Defendant submitted no evidence with respect to notice. However, there is evidence in the record that defendant had superintendents on site who oversaw the subcontractors’ work and that defendant had a duty to notify and warn the building owner and its occupants of hazardous work undertaken on the project site so as to safeguard the building’s occupants against exposure to such hazards. Thus, issues of fact exist as to whether defendant knew of the scheduled use of the paint stripper and of the product’s toxicity and yet failed to warn the building owner and occupants to prevent harm to them. These issues of fact as to negligence also preclude summary judgment in defendant’s favor on its claim for contractual indemnification by Island Painting … . Arias v Recife Realty Co., N.V., 2019 NY Slip Op 04269, First Dept 5-30-19

 

, , , ,

IN THIS ASBESTOS EXPOSURE CASE, A WITNESS’S VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION TESTIMONY FROM PROCEEDINGS IN OTHER STATES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THE PLAINTIFF’S DIRECT CASE OR IN THE DEFENSE CASE, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, ordering a new trial, determined that videotaped deposition testimony from proceedings in other states was not admissible in the New York action. It was alleged that plaintiff’s decedent died from exposure to asbestos in a joint compound made by Georgia-Pacific. An employee of Georgia-Pacific, Charles Lehnert, who was familiar with the formula for the joint compound, gave the videotaped deposition testimony:

CPLR 3117 (a) (3) provides, in relevant part, that “any part or all of a deposition, so far as admissible under the rules of evidence, may be used . . . by any party for any purpose against any other party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had the notice required under these rules.” Here, defendant was permitted to introduce deposition testimony given by Lehnert in the 2007 Texas state court action for the purpose of demonstrating that it contradicted the 2001 and 2003 testimony that plaintiff had been permitted to introduce as part of its case-in-chief. However, although defendant was a party to the 2007 Texas action, plaintiff was not, and he had no opportunity to be present and cross-examine Lehnert. Thus, this testimony was not admissible under CPLR 3117 (a) (3) … . …

Although defendant did not cross-appeal, our holding reversing Supreme Court’s ruling regarding Lehnert’s 2007 testimony necessarily brings up for review Supreme Court’s denial of defendant’s motion to preclude Lehnert’s 2001 and 2003 testimony (seeCPLR 5501 [a] [1] …). Upon review, we find that none of Lehnert’s deposition testimony should have been admitted into evidence at this trial. Although a live witness may be impeached with prior inconsistent testimony, Lehnert never testified for any party in this action, either at the trial itself or at any pretrial deposition. He was merely a witness who had testified years ago in multiple other states on the subject of the content of Georgia-Pacific joint compound. Rather than calling him (or any other witness) to testify on this topic, both parties resorted to retrieving video of Lehnert’s testimony in those earlier actions and selectively playing those portions they believed supported their respective contentions. The jury was essentially asked to determine whether Lehnert, an empty chair in New York, testified more credibly in Illinois or Texas. In this scenario, CPLR 3117 (a) (2) did not permit plaintiff to introduce the 2001 and 2003 depositions on his case-in-chief, and CPLR 3117 (c) did not permit defendant to impeach those depositions with another deposition. Billok v Union Carbide Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 02185, Third Dept 3-21-19

 

, ,

RELEASE SIGNED BY PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT IN 1997 DID NOT ENTITLE CHEVRON TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ASBESTOS-MESOTHELIOMA CASE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Wilson, over a three-judge dissent, determined that defendant Chevron was not entitled to summary judgment in this asbestos-mesothelioma action. Plaintiff’s decedent [Mr. South] signed a release in 1997 and Chevron argued the release precluded the subsequent lawsuit:

Like Supreme Court, the Appellate Division concluded that the record did not demonstrate Chevron’s entitlement to summary judgment, because the release did not specifically mention mesothelioma, which then required the court to determine whether extrinsic evidence entitled Chevron to summary judgment. Pointing to the “meager consideration” [$1,750] and the lack of any diagnosis of mesothelioma as to Mr. South at the time he settled, the Appellate Division concluded that the record left open the question of whether the release pertained to an existing pulmonary condition and the fear of some future asbestos-related disease, or if it was intended to release all future asbestos-related diseases arising from Mr. South’s employment by Texaco. The parties agree that, at the time he executed the release, Mr. South suffered from a nonmalignant pulmonary disease but not from mesothelioma or cancer. …

The sole question presented to us on this appeal is whether Chevron has established that the release, coupled with the 1997 complaint, eliminates all material questions of fact and proves that the release bars the claims here as a matter of law. Answering that question requires us to consider the protections afforded to Mr. South by admiralty law and Section 5 of FELA [Federal Employers’ Liability Act] (45 USC § 55), which is incorporated into the Jones Act by 46 USC § 30104. …

… [W]e conclude that Chevron has not met its burden to demonstrate the absence of any material question of fact. The 1997 release does not unambiguously extinguish a future claim for mesothelioma  … . The release itself does not mention mesothelioma. It does say that Mr. South “is giving up the right to bring an action against the Released Parties, or any of them, in the future for any new or different diagnosis that may be made about Claimant’s condition as a result of exposure to any product[.]” But “claimant’s condition” may cabin the “new or different diagnosis” to ones that related to his nonmalignant asbestos-related pulmonary disease—the “condition” both parties agree was the only one he suffered at the time. Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 2019 NY Slip Op 01259, CtApp 2-19-19

 

, ,

STATUTORY PRESUMPTION THAT THE PAINT CONTAINED LEAD DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING WAS PAINTED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1960; HOWEVER QUESTIONS OF FACT WERE RAISED ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF LEAD PAINT AND THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE PAINT AND INFANT PLAINTIFF’S LEAD POISONING, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Moulton, reversing Supreme Court, determined that questions of fact were raised about the landlord’s (New York City Housing Authority’s, NYCHA’s) responsibility for the lead poisoning of infant plaintiff (A.L.). Successive blood tests revealed increasing lead levels as the child aged, and a decrease after the apartment was repainted. The first issue the court dealt with was whether Local Law 1, which creates a presumption that the paint in the apartment contains more than .5 percent lead for buildings “erected” prior to January 1, 1960, applied. The certificate of occupancy for the building was issued in March, 1961, but there was evidence the building was under construction in 1959. “Erected” was (apparently) interpreted to mean when the apartment was painted, so the statutory presumption did not apply:

Here, A.L.’s elevated blood lead level suggests … a hazardous condition may have existed in the apartment during the relevant period. While there are other sources of lead poisoning, housing is a prime source …  The circumstantial evidence of a hazardous lead-based paint condition is also supported by an affirmation by Dr. Douglas B. Savino and an affidavit by lead paint expert William Savarese. Dr. Savino concluded that the apartment contained a hazardous level of lead-based paint, given the “chronology of the infant plaintiff’s blood lead levels,” which was “environmentally and temporally related to the infant plaintiff’s residence.” He noted that A.L.’s blood levels increased over time until he was diagnosed with 16 ug/dl on March 19, 2003, coinciding with the repainting of the apartment on March 5-6, 2003. Dr. Savino attributed the lead spike in A.L.’s blood to A.L. ingesting an excessive amount of lead dust. Dr. Savino further pointed out that A.L.’s blood lead levels declined gradually after the 2003 apartment repair and the 2004 removal of the chipped and peeling interior doors. William Savarese echoed Dr. Savino’s statements and conclusions. A.L. v New York City Hous. Auth., 2019 NY Slip Op 00702, First Dept 1-31-19

 

, , ,

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICES OF CLAIM AGAINST THE VILLAGE STEMMING FROM A HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE IN THE WATER SUPPLY PROPERLY GRANTED, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR THE DELAY, THE VILLAGE HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE FACTS UNDERLYING THE CLAIM AND WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly granted petitioners’ application to file late notices of claim against the village stemming from a hazardous substance, PFOA, in the municipal water supply. Although petitioners did not have an adequate excuse for the delay, respondents had timely knowledge of the facts underlying the claim and were not prejudiced by the the delay:

… [I]t is evident that respondent was well aware of the PFOA contamination in its municipal water system, the likelihood of increased PFOA levels in the blood of its residents as a result of exposure to PFOA and the potential negative health consequences as a result thereof. On the record before us, therefore, respondent cannot plausibly claim that it had only a “general awareness” of the presence of PFOA in its municipal water system. Accordingly, we conclude that Supreme Court properly found that respondent had actual notice of all the essential facts underlying petitioners’ claims … . …

Further, there has been no demonstration of substantial prejudice to respondent as a result of petitioners’ delay in seeking to file late notices of claim … . Respondent has been aware of the subject PFOA contamination since at least October 2014, it was apprised of the potential negative health risks to its residents from PFOA exposure and, as a result of the blood testing program commenced by DOH, it learned of the elevated levels of PFOA in its residents — despite its efforts to downplay said results. Moreover, respondent alleges that it has located the source of the PFOA contamination and petitioners, as residents of respondent, remain available for any further investigation into whether respondent’s conduct was the proximate cause of their alleged injuries. In turn, other than the passage of time, respondent has offered no particularized evidence in opposition to establish that it suffered substantial prejudice … . Matter of Holbrook v Village of Hoosick Falls, 2019 NY Slip Op 00342, Third Dept 1-17-19

, , , ,

THE GRANT OF FORD’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE AFFIRMED, EVIDENCE OF A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN ASBESTOS IN BRAKE LININGS AND PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S MESOTHELIOMA NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, affirming the grant of defendant-Ford’s motion to set aside the verdict in this asbestos case, over two concurring opinions and a dissenting opinion, determined the evidence of a causal connection between the asbestos in brake linings on Ford vehicles and plaintiff’s decedent’s mesothelioma was legally insufficient. Plaintiff’s decedent worked in a garage and was exposed to asbestos-laden dust from new and used brakes, clutches and manifold and engine gaskets:

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish that respondent Ford Motor Company’s conduct was a proximate cause of the decedent’s injuries pursuant to the standards set forth in Parker v Mobil Oil Corp. (7 NY3d 434 [2006]) and Cornell v 360 W. 51st St. Realty, LLC(22 NY3d 762 [2014]). Accordingly, on this particular record, defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law under CPLR 4404 (a) … . Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 2018 NY Slip Op 08059, CtApp 11-27-18

PRODUCTS LIABILITY (ASBESTOS, THE GRANT OF FORD’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE AFFIRMED, EVIDENCE OF A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN ASBESTOS IN BRAKE LININGS AND PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S MESOTHELIOMA NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (CT APP))/TOXIC TORTS  (ASBESTOS, THE GRANT OF FORD’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE AFFIRMED, EVIDENCE OF A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN ASBESTOS IN BRAKE LININGS AND PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S MESOTHELIOMA NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (CT APP))/NEGLIGENCE (TOXIC TORTS, ASBESTOS, THE GRANT OF FORD’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE AFFIRMED, EVIDENCE OF A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN ASBESTOS IN BRAKE LININGS AND PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S MESOTHELIOMA NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (CT APP))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (TOXIC TORTS, ASBESTOS, THE GRANT OF FORD’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE AFFIRMED, EVIDENCE OF A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN ASBESTOS IN BRAKE LININGS AND PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S MESOTHELIOMA NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (CT APP))/ASBESTOS (TOXIC TORTS, ASBESTOS, THE GRANT OF FORD’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE AFFIRMED, EVIDENCE OF A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN ASBESTOS IN BRAKE LININGS AND PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S MESOTHELIOMA NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (CT APP))/MESOTHELIOMA  (TOXIC TORTS, ASBESTOS, THE GRANT OF FORD’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS ASBESTOS CASE AFFIRMED, EVIDENCE OF A CAUSAL CONNECTION BETWEEN ASBESTOS IN BRAKE LININGS AND PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S MESOTHELIOMA NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (CT APP))

, , ,

BUILDING OWNER COULD NOT SEEK INDEMNIFICATION FROM THE LESSEE IN THIS LEAD PAINT CASE WHERE THE INJURED PARTY WAS A SUBTENANT, THE INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE IN THE LEASE DID NOT LIMIT RECOVERY TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE LESSEE AND THEREFORE THE CLAUSE WAS UNENFORCEABLE UNDER THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the lessee’s motion for summary judgment in this lead paint injury case should have been granted. The injured child was in the subtenant’s family. The subtenant sued the owner of the building for failing to abate the lead paint hazard. The owner attempted to seek indemnification from the lessee. The indemnification clause in the lease, however, was not enforceable because it was not limited to the lessee’s negligence:

At the time when the alleged injury occurred, Administrative Code of the City of New York former § 27-2013(h) (Local Law 1) … placed a specific duty on the owner of a multiple dwelling to abate lead paint in leased premises where children under the specified age resided… . The owner of a cooperative corporation was considered the owner of a multiple dwelling for purposes of Local Law 1… .

Contrary to the [lessee’s] contention, the fact that Local Law 1 imposed a nondelegable duty on [the owner] to abate the lead paint hazard does not mean that [the owner] is precluded from recovering in indemnity, either contractual or common-law, from third parties whose acts or omissions are alleged to have caused or contributed to the infant plaintiff’s injuries… . However, under the circumstances presented, [the owner] may not seek contractual indemnification from the [lessee] based on the indemnification provision contained in the proprietary lease. “A broad indemnification provision in a lease . . . which is not limited to the lessee’s acts or omissions, fails to make exceptions for the lessor’s own negligence, and does not limit the lessor’s recovery under the lessee’s indemnification obligation to insurance proceeds, is unenforceable pursuant to General Obligations Law § 5-321” … . N.A. v Hillcrest Owners Assn., Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 07133, Second Dept 10-24-18

CONTRACT LAW (BUILDING OWNER COULD NOT SEEK INDEMNIFICATION FROM THE LESSEE IN THIS LEAD PAINT CASE WHERE THE INJURED PARTY WAS A SUBTENANT, THE INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE IN THE LEASE DID NOT LIMIT RECOVERY TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE LESSEE AND THEREFORE THE CLAUSE WAS UNENFORCEABLE UNDER THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (SECOND DEPT))/LANDLORD-TENANT (BUILDING OWNER COULD NOT SEEK INDEMNIFICATION FROM THE LESSEE IN THIS LEAD PAINT CASE WHERE THE INJURED PARTY WAS A SUBTENANT, THE INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE IN THE LEASE DID NOT LIMIT RECOVERY TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE LESSEE AND THEREFORE THE CLAUSE WAS UNENFORCEABLE UNDER THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE  (BUILDING OWNER COULD NOT SEEK INDEMNIFICATION FROM THE LESSEE IN THIS LEAD PAINT CASE WHERE THE INJURED PARTY WAS A SUBTENANT, THE INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE IN THE LEASE DID NOT LIMIT RECOVERY TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE LESSEE AND THEREFORE THE CLAUSE WAS UNENFORCEABLE UNDER THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (SECOND DEPT))/TOXIC TORTS (LEAD PAINT, (BUILDING OWNER COULD NOT SEEK INDEMNIFICATION FROM THE LESSEE IN THIS LEAD PAINT CASE WHERE THE INJURED PARTY WAS A SUBTENANT, THE INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE IN THE LEASE DID NOT LIMIT RECOVERY TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE LESSEE AND THEREFORE THE CLAUSE WAS UNENFORCEABLE UNDER THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (SECOND DEPT))/INDEMNIFICATION (LEASE, BUILDING OWNER COULD NOT SEEK INDEMNIFICATION FROM THE LESSEE IN THIS LEAD PAINT CASE WHERE THE INJURED PARTY WAS A SUBTENANT, THE INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE IN THE LEASE DID NOT LIMIT RECOVERY TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE LESSEE AND THEREFORE THE CLAUSE WAS UNENFORCEABLE UNDER THE GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO VACATE A DISMISSAL AND ALLOW AMENDMENT PLAINTIFF’S BILL OF PARTICULARS, PLAINTIFF’S DELAY IN COMPLYING WITH A CONDITIONAL PRECLUSION ORDER WAS SHORT AND WAS ADEQUATELY EXCUSED BY LAW OFFICER FAILURE (SECOND DEPT

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the delay in complying with a conditional discovery order did not justify Supreme Court's refusing to vacate the dismissal and allow the amendment of plaintiff's bill of particulars. The delay was short and the law office failure excuse was adequate:

“To obtain relief from a conditional order of preclusion, the defaulting party must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the failure to produce the requested items and the existence of a potentially meritorious claim or defense” … . Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in concluding that the law office failure of the plaintiff's former counsel was not a reasonable excuse for the plaintiff's short delay in complying with the directives of the conditional order … . Moreover, the plaintiff demonstrated the existence of a potentially meritorious cause of action to recover lost wages … .

Further, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to amend her bill of particulars to allege that she had sustained property damage as a result of her alleged exposure to toxic mold and fungi at the defendants' premises. “Generally, in the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, leave to amend a bill of particulars should be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit'” … . “Where this standard is met, [t]he sufficiency or underlying merit of the proposed amendment is to be examined no further'” … . Here, the proposed amendment is not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit, and there is no evidence that it would prejudice or surprise the defendants, since the proposed amendment arose out of the same facts as those set forth in the complaint … . Liese v Hennessey, 2018 NY Slip Op 06087, Second Dept 9-19-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO VACATE A DISMISSAL AND ALLOW AMENDMENT PLAINTIFF'S BILL OF PARTICULARS, PLAINTIFF'S DELAY IN COMPLYING WITH A CONDITIONAL PRECLUSION ORDER WAS SHORT AND WAS ADEQUATELY EXCUSED BY LAW OFFICER FAILURE (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS  (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO VACATE A DISMISSAL AND ALLOW AMENDMENT PLAINTIFF'S BILL OF PARTICULARS, PLAINTIFF'S DELAY IN COMPLYING WITH A CONDITIONAL PRECLUSION ORDER WAS SHORT AND WAS ADEQUATELY EXCUSED BY LAW OFFICER FAILURE (SECOND DEPT))/LAW OFFICE FAILURE  (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO VACATE A DISMISSAL AND ALLOW AMENDMENT PLAINTIFF'S BILL OF PARTICULARS, PLAINTIFF'S DELAY IN COMPLYING WITH A CONDITIONAL PRECLUSION ORDER WAS SHORT AND WAS ADEQUATELY EXCUSED BY LAW OFFICER FAILURE (SECOND DEPT))/BILL OF PARTICULARS (SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO VACATE A DISMISSAL AND ALLOW AMENDMENT PLAINTIFF'S BILL OF PARTICULARS, PLAINTIFF'S DELAY IN COMPLYING WITH A CONDITIONAL PRECLUSION ORDER WAS SHORT AND WAS ADEQUATELY EXCUSED BY LAW OFFICER FAILURE (SECOND DEPT))

, , , ,

ACTIONS AGAINST THE COUNTY STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS WHILE WORKING ON COUNTY PROPERTY WERE TIME BARRED, INCLUDING AN ACTION ALLEGING FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF THE PRESENCE OF ASBESTOS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff's actions stemming from exposure to asbestos, including an action against the county alleging fraudulent concealment of the presence of asbestos where plaintiff worked, were time barred:

Generally, an action to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the latent effects of exposure to any substance or combination of substances must be commenced within three years of the date of discovery of the injury by the plaintiff or from the date when, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, such injury should have been discovered by the plaintiff, whichever is earlier (see CPLR 214-c[2] …). “For purposes of CPLR 214-c, discovery occurs when, based upon an objective level of awareness of the dangers and consequences of the particular substance, the injured party discovers the primary condition on which the claim is based'” … . Where, as here, a claim is asserted against a municipality, the statute of limitations as to the claim against the municipality is 1 year and 90 days and is measured from the date of discovery of the injury or from the date when, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, the injury should have been discovered, whichever is earlier … . O'Brien v County of Nassau, 2018 NY Slip Op 05774, Second Dept 8-15-18

TOXIC TORTS (ASBESTOS, ACTIONS AGAINST THE COUNTY STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF'S EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS WHILE WORKING ON COUNTY PROPERTY WERE TIME BARRED, INCLUDING AN ACTION ALLEGING FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF THE PRESENCE OF ASBESTOS (SECOND DEPT))/ASBESTOS (ACTIONS AGAINST THE COUNTY STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF'S EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS WHILE WORKING ON COUNTY PROPERTY WERE TIME BARRED, INCLUDING AN ACTION ALLEGING FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF THE PRESENCE OF ASBESTOS (SECOND DEPT))/MUNICIPAL LAW (TOXIC TORTS, ACTIONS AGAINST THE COUNTY STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF'S EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS WHILE WORKING ON COUNTY PROPERTY WERE TIME BARRED, INCLUDING AN ACTION ALLEGING FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF THE PRESENCE OF ASBESTOS (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, TOXIC TORTS, ACTIONS AGAINST THE COUNTY STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF'S EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS WHILE WORKING ON COUNTY PROPERTY WERE TIME BARRED, INCLUDING AN ACTION ALLEGING FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF THE PRESENCE OF ASBESTOS (SECOND DEPT))/(STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, TOXIC TORTS, ACTIONS AGAINST THE COUNTY STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF'S EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS WHILE WORKING ON COUNTY PROPERTY WERE TIME BARRED, INCLUDING AN ACTION ALLEGING FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF THE PRESENCE OF ASBESTOS (SECOND DEPT))/FRAUD (ASBESTOS, ACTIONS AGAINST THE COUNTY STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF'S EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS WHILE WORKING ON COUNTY PROPERTY WERE TIME BARRED, INCLUDING AN ACTION ALLEGING FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF THE PRESENCE OF ASBESTOS (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT’S DEADLINE FOR EXPERT DISCLOSURE IN THIS TOXIC TORTS CASE WARRANTED PRECLUSION OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT EVIDENCE AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, affirming Supreme Court's preclusion of plaintiff's (Colucci's) expert evidence and the grant of summary judgment to defendant, determined the failure of plaintiff to meet the deadline for expert disclosure warranted preclusion. Plaintiff had leased business space from defendant and alleged that exposure to sewage and mold at the premises caused health problems. Plaintiff did not disclose her expert, one of her treating physicians (Johanning), until a year after the discovery deadline imposed by Supreme Court. Defendant had timely submitted expert evidence opining there was no causal relationship between plaintiff's exposure to sewage and mold at the leased premises and plaintiff's health problems:

… [T]his Court has interpreted CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) as “requiring disclosure of any medical professional, even a treating physician or nurse, who is expected to give expert testimony” … . Thus, while Johanning was listed in Colucci's responses to defendant's bill of particulars as one of 28 treating physicians or medical providers, and medical treatment records for her were disclosed, this at most indicated to defendant that Johanning might have been called as an expert by plaintiffs; it did not obviate the need for plaintiffs to comply with CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) and Supreme Court's order by disclosing their intent to rely on him as an expert, as well as the substance of the facts and opinions to which he was expected to testify… . To that end, the expert disclosure statute requires, in relevant part, “reasonable detail [of] the subject matter on which [the] expert is expected to testify, the substance of the facts and opinions . . . and a summary of the grounds for [the] expert's opinion” (CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [i]), none of which was timely disclosed to defendant … . Notably, “the burden of providing expert witness disclosure and setting forth the particular details required by the statute lies with the party seeking to utilize the expert; it is not opposing counsel's responsibility to cull through [copious medical records] to ferret out the qualifications of the subject expert, the facts or opinions that will form the basis for his or her testimony at trial and/or the grounds upon which the resulting opinion will be based”… . Moreover, the record supports Supreme Court's conclusions that Johanning's expert affidavit, submitted for the first time in opposition to defendant's motion, offered substantially new medical and scientific theories not reflected in his medical records … . Thus, the court providently precluded Johanning's expert affidavit and testimony. Colucci v Stuyvesant Plaza, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 00211, Third Dept 1-11-18

NEGLIGENCE (EXPERT DISCLOSURE, PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S DEADLINE FOR EXPERT DISCLOSURE IN THIS TOXIC TORTS CASE WARRANTED PRECLUSION OF PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT EVIDENCE AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT (THIRD DEPT))/TOXIC TORTS  (EXPERT DISCLOSURE, PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S DEADLINE FOR EXPERT DISCLOSURE IN THIS TOXIC TORTS CASE WARRANTED PRECLUSION OF PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT EVIDENCE AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT (THIRD DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (TOXIC TORTS, EXPERT DISCLOSURE, PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S DEADLINE FOR EXPERT DISCLOSURE IN THIS TOXIC TORTS CASE WARRANTED PRECLUSION OF PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT EVIDENCE AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (TOXIC TORTS, EXPERT DISCLOSURE, PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S DEADLINE FOR EXPERT DISCLOSURE IN THIS TOXIC TORTS CASE WARRANTED PRECLUSION OF PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT EVIDENCE AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT (THIRD DEPT))/EXPERT OPINION (TOXIC TORTS, EXPERT DISCLOSURE, PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S DEADLINE FOR EXPERT DISCLOSURE IN THIS TOXIC TORTS CASE WARRANTED PRECLUSION OF PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT EVIDENCE AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT (THIRD DEPT))/CPLR 3101 (TOXIC TORTS, EXPERT DISCLOSURE, PLAINTIFF'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S DEADLINE FOR EXPERT DISCLOSURE IN THIS TOXIC TORTS CASE WARRANTED PRECLUSION OF PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT EVIDENCE AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT (THIRD 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy