From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Aikman v. Atex, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 1, 1996
224 A.D.2d 180 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Summary

In Aikman, the First Department endorsed the factors set forth by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281, 1285 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 920 (1990), and Malcolm v. National Gypsum Co., 995 F.2d 346, 350-51 (2d Cir. 1993); these factors were outlined originally by a court in Maryland when considering whether to consolidate certain asbestos cases.

Summary of this case from Caroline Feller Bauer v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co. (In re N.Y.C. Asbestos Litig.)

Opinion

February 1, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.).


We concur with the Second Circuit in In re Repetitive Stress Injury Litig. ( 11 F.3d 368, 373, reh granted in part 35 F.3d 637, reh denied 35 F.3d 640) that the factors listed in Johnson v. Celotex Corp. ( 899 F.2d 1281, 1285, cert denied 498 U.S. 920 [asbestos litigation]; see also, Malcolm v. National Gypsum Co., 995 F.2d 346, 351-352) are an appropriate guideline in deciding whether repetitive stress injury claims should be joined together. We agree with the IAS Court that all of the factors — common worksite, similar occupation, similar time of exposure, similar injury, status of disclosure on each claim, and representation by the same attorney — are present here. Any possibility of jury confusion was mitigated by the IAS Court's decision to impanel four separate juries ( see, In re Joint E. S. Dist. Asbestos Litig., 125 FRD 60, 67). No other demonstrable prejudice is shown in the case which, as the IAS Court explained, "is limited to four plaintiffs * * * who allege injuries caused by one defendant's negligent and improper design, production, manufacture and sales of a limited number of keyboards to [plaintiffs' common employer] * * * and identical theories of liability under [a single jurisdiction's] laws" ( comparing In re Repetitive Stress Injury Litig., supra; cf., Malcolm v. National Gypsum Co., 995 F.2d 346, 351-352, supra).

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

Aikman v. Atex, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 1, 1996
224 A.D.2d 180 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

In Aikman, the First Department endorsed the factors set forth by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Johnson v. Celotex Corp., 899 F.2d 1281, 1285 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 920 (1990), and Malcolm v. National Gypsum Co., 995 F.2d 346, 350-51 (2d Cir. 1993); these factors were outlined originally by a court in Maryland when considering whether to consolidate certain asbestos cases.

Summary of this case from Caroline Feller Bauer v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co. (In re N.Y.C. Asbestos Litig.)
Case details for

Aikman v. Atex, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:REBECCA AIKMAN et al., Respondents, v. ATEX, INC., Appellant. REBECCA…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Feb 1, 1996

Citations

224 A.D.2d 180 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
637 N.Y.S.2d 123

Citing Cases

Talavera v. Arbit

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs. The Supreme Court…

Lopez v. Sunrise One, LLC

In asbestos cases, for example, there has been joint trial of the claims of more than 30 plaintiffs. ( See…