New York Asbestos Litigation
Mesothelioma victims in New York can receive compensation from a mesothelioma attorney. The exposure to asbestos is often the cause of these types of illnesses; symptoms can take years before they appear.
The judges who manage NYCAL's caseload have crafted a pattern of favoring plaintiffs. Recent rulings could further undermine the rights of defendants.
Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos litigation is distinct from the typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases involve multiple defendants (companies being sued) as well as multiple law offices representing plaintiffs, and multiple expert witness. These cases usually are based on specific job areas since asbestos was used to create various products and a lot of workers were exposed to asbestos at work. Asbestos-related victims are frequently diagnosed with serious illnesses such as mesothelioma or lung cancer.
New York has a unique approach to asbestos litigation. It is among the largest dockets across the country. It is administered by a special Case Management Order. This CMO was created to manage huge numbers of asbestos cases, involving numerous defendants. asbestos exposure litigation involved in the NYCAL docket have extensive experience in asbestos cases. The docket has also seen some of the highest award for plaintiffs in recent times.
The New York Court of Appeals has recently made some significant changes to the NYCAL docket. 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 had been accused of killing every reasonably created tort reform bill that was passed by the legislature for more than 20 years while moonlighting for the plaintiffs' firm Weitz & Luxenberg.
Justice Sherry Klein Heitler, the long-time manager of the NYCAL docket, resigned in April 2014 amidst reports that she'd given the Weitz & Luxenberg law firm "red-carpet treatment." She was replaced by Justice Peter Moulton, who made a variety of changes to the docket.
Moulton introduced an amendment to the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to submit evidence that their products aren't accountable for the mesothelioma that plaintiffs suffer from. He also implemented new rules that stipulated that he wouldn't dismiss cases until the expert witness testimony was completed. This new policy will dramatically affect the speed of discovery in cases in the NYCAL docket and may result in better outcomes for defendants.
A federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed MDL 875 recently and ordered that all future asbestos cases be transferred to another District. This should result in an efficient and uniform treatment of asbestos cases. The current MDL is well-known for its abuse of discovery as well as its unjustified sanction and inadequate evidentiary standards.
Central New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
After years of mismanagement and corruption by the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the scandals surrounding his ties to asbestos lawyers have finally attracted the attention of the rigged asbestos docket. Justice Peter Moulton is now the head of NYCAL and has already held a town hall with defense attorneys to listen to complaints about a "rigged" system that favors a powerful asbestos law firm.
Asbestos litigation differs from the typical personal injury lawsuit, with many of the same defendants (companies that are sued) as well as plaintiffs (people who file lawsuits). Asbestos litigation also generally involves similar work sites where a large number of people were exposed to asbestos, usually leading to mesothelioma or lung cancer, as well as other diseases. This can result in large cases that can cause delays in court dockets.
To limit this problem, several states have passed laws that restrict the types of claims that can be filed. They typically deal with medical criteria two disease rules expedited scheduling, joinders and forum shopping, punitive damages and successor liability.
Despite these laws, certain states still face a large number of asbestos lawsuits. Some courts have created special "asbestos Dockets" to reduce the number and accelerate the resolution of these cases. These dockets apply different rules specifically designed for asbestos cases. The New York City asbestos court, for example requires claimants to meet certain medical criteria and has rules for two diseases. It also employs an accelerated scheduling.
Some states have also passed laws that restrict the amount of punitive damages awarded in asbestos cases. These laws are intended to deter particularly bad conduct and allow more compensation to be awarded to victims. You should consult an New York Mesothelioma Lawyer regardless of whether you decide to file your case in state or federal courts to learn about the laws that apply to your case.
Alfred Sargente focuses his practice on toxic tort and environmental litigation including commercial litigation, product liability and general liability issues. He has extensive experience defending clients against claims of exposure to lead, asbestos and World Trade Center dust in both New York and New Jersey. He also regularly defends claims that claim exposure to a variety of other hazardous substances and contaminants such as chemical and solvents, noise, mold, vibration and environmental toxins.
Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
New York has seen thousands of deaths resulting from asbestos exposure. In five counties, mesothelioma sufferers and their loved ones have filed lawsuits against the manufacturers of asbestos-based products to recover compensation. Successful mesothelioma lawsuits make asbestos companies accountable for their reckless decisions to place profits over public safety.
New York mesothelioma lawyers are experienced in representing clients from diverse backgrounds against the country's largest asbestos producers. Their legal strategies may result in a substantial settlement or trial verdict.
Asbestos litigation has a long-standing history in New York, and continues to make headlines. According to the 2022 report on mesothelioma claim submissions by KCIC, New York is the third most popular state for filing mesothelioma lawsuits, following California and Pennsylvania.
The state's judicial system has been shaken by the flood of asbestos lawsuits. Sheldon Silver, the former Assembly Speaker, was convicted in 2015 of federal corruption charges related to millions of dollar referral fees that he received from the politically powerful plaintiffs law firms Weitz & Luxenberg for handling asbestos cases. Following the scandal, Justice Sherry Klein Heitler, who had managed NYCAL since 2008, was dismissed amid reports that she gave "red-carpet treatment" to Weitz & Luxenberg asbestos lawsuits.
Justice Heitler was succeeded as NYCAL judge by Justice Peter Moulton, who has clarified that defendants are not entitled to summary judgment unless they present a "scientifically sound valid, credible and admissible scientific study" showing the measured amount of exposure a plaintiff received was not sufficient to cause mesothelioma. This eliminates the likelihood that NYCAL defendants will be able to secure summary judgment.
In addition, Justice Moulton has ruled that a plaintiff must show some damage to their health as a result of exposure to asbestos for the court to give compensatory damages. This ruling, along with a decision made in early 2016 that ruled that medical monitoring is not a tort, makes it virtually impossible for an asbestos defence lawyer to prevail on a NYCAL Summary Judgment motion.
In the most recent case, which Judge Toal presided over, a mesothelioma suit brought against DOVER Green, the company is accused of violating asbestos work practices regulations when it renovated Manhattan campus buildings in October 2013 to raise money for a fundraising event. The lawsuit asserts that DOVER GREENS didn't follow CAA and Asbestos NESHAP regulations by failing to inform and inspect the EPA prior to beginning renovations, or to properly removing, storing and dispose of asbestos and having a trained representative at renovation activities.
Eastern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos-related personal lawsuits for death and injury filled up federal court dockets and judges' judicial resources were drained, preventing them from addressing criminal cases or other important civil disputes. The frenzied litigation hindered the timely compensation of deserving victims and innocent families, and forced companies to devote inordinate amounts of money and resources to defense of these cases.
Asbestos claims are filed by people diagnosed with mesothelioma, or other asbestos-related illnesses after being exposed to asbestos while at work. The majority of asbestos claims are filed by construction employees or shipyard workers, as well as other tradesmen working on buildings made or containing asbestos-containing materials. They were exposed to asbestos fibers that were dangerous during the manufacturing process or when working on the actual structure.
The first significant mass tort was asbestos litigation. From the late 1970s to the early 1980s, asbestos exposure triggered an influx of personal injury and wrongful deaths lawsuits. This was the case in both state and federal court across the nation.
These lawsuits are brought by plaintiffs who claim that their illnesses were the result of the negligent manufacture of asbestos products. They also claim that companies failed to warn them about the dangers associated with asbestos exposure. While the majority of asbestos cases were brought in state courts, more than half were filed in federal courts.
In the early 1990s, after recognizing that this litigation was "terrible calendar congestion," District Judge Jack B. Weinstein and New York Supreme Court Justice Helen Freedman jointly consolidated for settlement as well as pretrial and discovery purposes hundreds of state and federal lawsuits that alleged exposure to asbestos at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Under the supervision of Special Master, Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman consolidated these cases known as Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation.
While the bulk of these cases were connected to the Brooklyn Navy Yard, many of the defendants were defendants in other asbestos claims. The defendants list 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.