From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

NYC Asbestos Litig. v. Charles B. Chrystal Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jun 20, 2019
173 A.D.3d 573 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

9676 Index 40000/88, Index 190413/13

06-20-2019

IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION Claudine DiScala, etc., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Charles B. Chrystal Company, Inc., et al., Defendants, Whittaker Clark & Daniels, Inc., Defendant–Appellant.

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, New York (David G. Keyko of counsel), for appellant. Levy Konigsberg, LLP, New York (Renner K. Walker of counsel), for respondent.


Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, New York (David G. Keyko of counsel), for appellant.

Levy Konigsberg, LLP, New York (Renner K. Walker of counsel), for respondent.

Friedman, J.P., Richter, Kahn, Singh, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Shulman, J.), entered August 29, 2017, upon a jury verdict in plaintiff's favor, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered June 19, 2017, which denied defendant Whittaker Clark & Daniels, Inc.'s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the judgment vacated, the motion granted, and the complaint dismissed as against said defendant. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

Plaintiff failed to adduce evidence that the decedent was exposed to sufficient levels of asbestos in defendant's talc to cause mesothelioma. Plaintiff's causation expert merely opined that the decedent's exposure to unspecified "detectable" or "significant" levels of asbestos in the talcum product she used caused her mesothelioma. Plaintiff was not required to quantify the decedent's exposure level with exact mathematical precision (see Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 148 A.D.3d 233, 235–238, 48 N.Y.S.3d 365 [1st Dept. 2017], affd 32 N.Y.3d 1116, 91 N.Y.S.3d 784, 116 N.E.3d 75 [2018] ; Parker v. Mobil Oil Corp., 7 N.Y.3d 434, 449, 824 N.Y.S.2d 584, 857 N.E.2d 1114 [2006] ). However, in this case the evidence failed to establish a level of exposure sufficient to cause the illness.


Summaries of

NYC Asbestos Litig. v. Charles B. Chrystal Co.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Jun 20, 2019
173 A.D.3d 573 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

NYC Asbestos Litig. v. Charles B. Chrystal Co.

Case Details

Full title:In re New York City Asbestos Litigation Claudine DiScala, etc.…

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

Date published: Jun 20, 2019

Citations

173 A.D.3d 573 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
103 N.Y.S.3d 92
2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 5005

Citing Cases

Rothlen v. Am. Int'l Indus. for Clubman (In re N.Y.C. Asbestos Litig.)

To the extent that plaintiffs argue that Colgate placed corporate profits and reputation above the health and…

Olson v. Brenntag N. Am., Inc.

( Nemeth , 183 AD3d at 222-223 ; see alsoid. at 229 & n 7.) J & J's citation to the First Department's…