From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Koulermos v. Productions

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 17, 2016
137 A.D.3d 575 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)

Opinion

03-17-2016

Michael KOULERMOS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS, Defendant, National Grid USA, Defendant–Respondent, Courter & Company, et al., Defendants–Appellants.

McGivney & Kluger, P.C., New York (Kerryann M. Cook of counsel), for appellants. Cullen & Dykman LLP, New York (John J. Burbridge of counsel), for respondent.


McGivney & Kluger, P.C., New York (Kerryann M. Cook of counsel), for appellants.

Cullen & Dykman LLP, New York (John J. Burbridge of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered August 17, 2015, which, inter alia, denied defendants Courter & Company's and Treadwell Corporation's motions for summary judgment dismissing defendant National Grid USA's cross claims against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Courter and Treadwell failed to establish prima facie that plaintiff Michael Koulermos was not at the facility in question alongside their employees. Their contention rested on evidence of plaintiff's inability to remember precisely when he worked at the facility. However, pointing to gaps in an opponent's evidence is insufficient to demonstrate a movant's entitlement to summary judgment; Courter and Treadwell failed to present evidence, such as affidavits establishing when their employees were present at the facility and whether or not those employees used asbestos-containing products, to “affirmatively demonstrate the merit of [their] ... defense” (Dalton v. Educational Testing Serv., 294 A.D.2d 462, 463, 742 N.Y.S.2d 364 [2d Dept.2002] ).

In any event, in opposition, defendant National Grid produced evidence showing when the facility was under construction and that during the construction Courter and Treadwell's employees were at the site for the installation of boilers and related equipment, a process that involved the use of asbestos-containing products and that occurred in plaintiff's vicinity.

We have considered Courter and Treadwell's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Koulermos v. Productions

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 17, 2016
137 A.D.3d 575 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
Case details for

Koulermos v. Productions

Case Details

Full title:Michael KOULERMOS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Mar 17, 2016

Citations

137 A.D.3d 575 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
27 N.Y.S.3d 157
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 1913

Citing Cases

Howard v. A.O. Smith Water Prods.

( O'Connor v. Aerco Intl., Inc., 152 A.D.3d 841, 842, 57 N.Y.S.3d 766 [3d Dept. 2017] [citation omitted],…

Zoas v. BASF Catalysts, LLC (In re N.Y.C. Asbestos Litig.)

A defendant cannot obtain summary judgment simply by "pointing to gaps in plaintiffs' proof" (Ricci v. A.O.…