New York Asbestos Litigation
In New York, mesothelioma and lung cancer victims can find compensation through an experienced mesothelioma lawyer. These illnesses are often caused by exposure to asbestos. The symptoms may not be apparent for many years.
Judges who oversee the cases of NYCAL have developed a pattern that favors plaintiffs. A recent decision could further undermine defendants' rights.
Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos litigation is much different than the typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases involve a variety of defendants (companies who are being sued), multiple law firms representing plaintiffs, and numerous expert witnesses. Additionally, there are usually specific job sites which are the subject of these cases due to asbestos was used in a variety of products and a lot of workers were exposed to it while working. Asbestos-related victims are frequently diagnosed with serious diseases such as mesothelioma and lung cancer.
New York has its own unique approach to dealing with asbestos litigation. In fact, it is one of the largest dockets in the country. It is managed by a special Case Management Order. This CMO was designed to handle asbestos cases that have numerous defendants. The judges on the NYCAL docket have extensive experience in asbestos cases. The docket is also the site of some of the most significant plaintiff verdicts in recent history.
New York Court of Appeals has made major changes to the NYCAL docket recently. In 2015 the political establishment in Albany was shaken to its base when former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted on federal corruption charges. He was accused of killing tort reform bills in the legislature for a period of 20 years, while also working at the firm representing plaintiffs Weitz & Luxenberg.
Justice Sherry Klein Heitler, the long-time head of the NYCAL docket, retired in April 2014 amid reports that she had offered the Weitz & Luxenberg law firm "red-carpet treatment." She was replaced by Justice Peter Moulton, who introduced a variety of changes to the docket.
Moulton implemented an amendment to the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to provide evidence that their products aren't accountable for the mesothelioma that plaintiffs suffer from. He also instituted an updated policy that states that he wouldn't dismiss cases until the expert witness testimony had been completed. This new policy will dramatically affect the speed of discovery in cases in the NYCAL docket and may result in more favorable outcomes for defendants.
In other New York asbestos news, an federal judge from the Eastern District of Virginia recently dismissed MDL 875 and ordered all asbestos cases in the future to be transferred to a different district. This will hopefully lead to more uniform and efficient handling of these cases because the MDL currently MDL has earned itself a reputation for discovery abuse as well as unjustified sanctions and minimal evidentiary requirements.
Central New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
After years of corruption by former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and his mismanagement, the scandals surrounding Sheldon Silver's ties with asbestos lawyers have finally brought attention to New York City’s asbestos court, which is rigged. Justice Peter Moulton, who now preside over NYCAL has already hosted a Town Hall meeting with defense attorneys to hear complaints about the "rigged" system which favors a powerful asbestos law firm.
Asbestos litigation differs from the typical personal injury lawsuit, which has many of the same defendants (companies who are being sued) as well as plaintiffs (people who file lawsuits). Asbestos lawsuits also usually involve similar work sites where a large number of people were exposed to asbestos, often leading to mesothelioma or lung cancer, as well as other diseases. This can lead large verdicts that can block dockets of the courts.
To combat this issue To address this issue, several states have passed laws to limit the types of claims that can be filed. These laws usually address medical criteria two disease rules, expedited scheduling, joinders and forum shopping, punitive damage and successor liability.
Despite these laws, some states are still seeing an influx of asbestos lawsuits. In an effort to cut down on the number of cases filed and resolve them faster certain courts have set up special "asbestos dockets" which apply a set of different rules to these cases. The New York City asbestos docket for instance, requires claimants to meet certain medical requirements, has a two-disease rule and has an accelerated trial schedule.
Some states have passed laws that limit the amount of punitive damages awarded in asbestos cases. These laws are designed to deter bad behavior and offer more compensation to the victims. Whatever the case is filed in federal or state court, you should work with an New York mesothelioma lawyer to learn more about the laws that affect your specific situation.
Alfred Sargente concentrates his practice in toxic tort and environment litigation, product liability and commercial litigation. He also is a specialist in general liability issues. He has vast experience the defense of clients against claims of exposure to asbestos, lead and World Trade Center Dust in both New York City and New Jersey. He also regularly defends claims alleging exposure to numerous other hazardous substances and contaminants such as chemical and solvents, vibration, noise, mold and environmental toxins.
Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
New York has seen thousands of deaths due to asbestos exposure. Across five counties, mesothelioma victims and their families have filed lawsuits against the manufacturers of asbestos-based products in order to receive compensation. Successful mesothelioma lawsuits hold negligent asbestos companies accountable for their rash choices to place profits over public safety.
New York mesothelioma lawyers are adept at representing clients with diverse backgrounds against the country's most significant asbestos manufacturers. Their legal strategies can result in a substantial settlement or trial verdict.
Asbestos litigation in New York has a rich history, and it continues to be the subject of headlines. The 2022 national mesothelioma lawsuit report from KCIC lists New York as the third most popular place for mesothelioma lawsuit filings, after California and Pennsylvania.
The state's judicial system is shaken by the flood of asbestos lawsuits. Sheldon Silver, the former Assembly Speaker, was convicted in 2015 of federal corruption charges in connection with millions of dollars in referral fees which he received from powerful political plaintiffs law firms Weitz & Luxenberg for handling asbestos cases. After the scandal, Justice Sherry Klein Heitler who had been the head of NYCAL since 2008, was replaced amidst reports that she had given "red-carpet treatment" to Weitz & Luxenberg asbestos lawsuits.
Justice Peter Moulton succeeded Justice Heitler as NYCAL judge. He has declared that defendants will not be able to obtain summary judgment unless they have a "scientifically valid and legally admissible research" that proves the dose of exposure a plaintiff received was not enough to trigger mesothelioma. This effectively ends the possibility that NYCAL defendants can get summary judgment.
Additionally, Justice Moulton has ruled that a plaintiff must prove some injury to his or her health from exposure to asbestos in order for the court to make a decision on compensatory damages. This ruling, along with a decision made in the beginning of 2016 that held that medical monitoring is not a tort claim, makes it almost impossible for asbestos defense lawyers to win a NYCAL summary judgment motion.
In the most recent case, which Judge Toal presided over, mesothelioma-related lawsuits brought against DOVER Green, the company is accused of not following asbestos work practices regulations when it renovated Manhattan campus buildings in October 2013 to raise funds for a fundraiser. The lawsuit asserts that DOVER GREENS didn't adhere to CAA and asbestos NESHAP regulations because it failed to notify and inspect the EPA prior to beginning renovation activities, properly removing, storing and dispose of asbestos and having a trained representative at renovation activities.
Eastern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
At one point, asbestos personal injury/death cases clogged federal and state court dockets and drained judges' resources for judicial work, preventing them from addressing criminal matters or other important civil disputes. The frenzied litigation hindered the timely compensation of deserving victims and innocent families, and caused companies to invest huge amounts of money and resources in defense of these cases.
Asbestos claims are filed by individuals diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related illnesses after exposure to asbestos in a work environment. Most cases are filed by construction workers, shipyard employees and other tradesmen who worked on buildings that were or were constructed with asbestos-containing materials. These individuals were exposed to dangerous asbestos fibers in the manufacturing process or when working on the structure itself.
Asbestos litigation was the first mass tort. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, an avalanche of personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits arising from exposure to asbestos filled the courts. This was the case in both state and federal court across the country.
These lawsuits are brought by plaintiffs who claim their illnesses resulted of the negligent manufacture of asbestos products. They claim that the companies did not warn them about the dangers of asbestos exposure. While the majority of asbestos cases were filed in state courts, a majority were brought in federal courts.
In the early 1990s, when they realized the fact that this litigation was "terrible calendar congestion," District Judge Jack B. Weinstein and New York Supreme Court Justice Helen Freedman jointly consolidated for settlement and pretrial purposes hundreds of state and federal cases which claimed asbestos exposure at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Under the supervision of the Special Master, Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman consolidated these cases, referred to as Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation.
While the majority of these cases were relating to the Brooklyn Navy Yard, many of the defendants were defendants in other asbestos cases. Bellflower asbestos lawsuit included Garlock, Inc; H & A Construction Company, as a successor and individually to Spraycraft Corporation; CRH, Inc. as the successor to E.I. Dupont, W.R. Grace and Company, Empire-Ace Insulation Manufacturing Corporation, Bell/Atlas Asbestos Corp., and DNS Metal Industries, Inc. were all defendants.