Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. Alice Kestenbaum, etc., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Durez Corp., et al., Defendants, Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant–Appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered January 6, 2014, which denied defendant Union Carbide Corporation's motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff commenced this action to recover for injuries and resulting death suffered by her decedent husband allegedly due to exposure to products containing asbestos. Although defendant Union Carbide Company did not actually manufacture the finished laminate product, it was alleged to have been the supplier of the asbestos-containing product of which the laminate sheets consisted. Even assuming defendant met its initial burden of establishing prima facie that its product could not have contributed to the causation of plaintiff decedent's asbestos-related injury (see Comeau v. W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn., 216 A.D.2d 79, 80 [1st Dept 1995]; Reid v. Georgia–Pacific Corp., 212 A.D.2d 462 [1st Dept 1995] ), plaintiff met her burden of alleging facts and conditions from which defendant's liability may reasonably be inferred (id.).
Plaintiff's evidence established that, during the course of his employment, the decedent was exposed to injury-causing asbestos dust, caused by defendant's product in the laminated sheets with which he worked on a regular basis (see Lloyd v. W.R. Grace & Co.Conn., 215 A.D.2d 177 [1st Dept 1995] ). The deposition testimony of both the decedent and defendant's own witness established that it is “reasonably probable” (Healey v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 87 N.Y.2d 596, 601–602 [1996] ) that the plastic laminated sheets, sold under the trade name Bakelite, contained asbestos from defendant's product. We note that plaintiff is not required to show the precise cause of his injuries (see Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. [Brooklyn Nav. Shipyard Cases], 188 A.D.2d 214, 225 [1st Dept 1993] affd 82 N.Y.2d 821 [1993] ).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: April 15, 2014
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)