BARLOTTA v. A.O. Smith Water Products Co. et al., Defendants. (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Adam Silvera, J.), entered November 22, 2024, which denied the motion of defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (AHM) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

AHM failed to “unequivocally establish that its product could not have contributed to the causation of” decedent's injury (Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig., 122 A.D.3d 520, 521, 997 N.Y.S.2d 381 [1st Dept. 2014]).  AHM does not dispute that its vehicles were equipped with asbestos-containing brakes during the period decedent alleged he was exposed.  Moreover, and as Supreme Court correctly found, AHM cherry-picked and mischaracterized portions of plaintiff Thomas Barlotta's testimony in support of its motion, which was insufficient to satisfy its burden.

Even if AHM established its prima facie case, plaintiff Barlotta's testimony and decedent's interrogatory responses raised a triable issue of fact as to whether decedent was exposed to asbestos through his contact with defendant's vehicles (see Carboni v. Alfa Romeo USA, 223 A.D.3d 585, 586, 203 N.Y.S.3d 310 [1st Dept. 2024]).  Barlotta testified that while he primarily pumped gas, there were days in which he was in the shop and assisted decedent with “brake jobs” and witnessed decedent working on Hondas “replacing brake components.”

We have considered AHM's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.