Opinion
February 23, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.).
Issues of fact exist that preclude summary judgment, including whether plaintiff was exposed to asbestos products manufactured by defendant's predecessor (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). In drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought, a reasonable trier of fact could find that plaintiff worked in the vicinity of where the products of defendant's predecessor were being used, and that he was exposed to defendant's product (see, In re Brooklyn Navy Yard Asbestos Litig., 971 F.2d 831, 837 [2d Cir]).
Cawein v. Flintkote Co. ( 203 A.D.2d 105) and Diel v. Flintkote Co. ( 204 A.D.2d 53) are not contrary, since, in both of those cases, we noted that there was no showing that opened packages of defendant Flintkote's asbestos were placed in the zone of those plaintiffs' exposure (supra, at 106; supra, at 54).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Kupferman, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.