Opinion
May 9, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.).
Plaintiff's evidence in opposition to defendant's motion, which tended to show that defendant's asbestos products were used by the decedent's employer on all of its ships at shipyards where the decedent worked at times that he worked there, and that the decedent worked with asbestos in confined, dusty areas, was sufficient to permit an inference that the decedent was exposed to asbestos products manufactured by defendant, and, accordingly, the motion was properly denied (see, Reid v Georgia-Pacific Corp., 212 A.D.2d 462; Salerno v Garlock Inc., 212 A.D.2d 463). To prevail in the action, plaintiff need not show the precise causes of the decedent's damages but only facts and conditions from which defendant's liability can be reasonably inferred (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. [Brooklyn Nav. Shipyard Cases], 188 A.D.2d 214, 225, affd 82 N.Y.2d 821; see also, Kreppein v Celotex Corp., 969 F.2d 1424, 1425-1426).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ross, Asch and Williams, JJ.