IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION (2019)

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.