Opinion
2014-04-15
In re NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. Alice Kestenbaum, etc., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Durez Corp., et al., Defendants, Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant–Appellant.
Mayer Brown LLP, New York (Scott A. Chesin of counsel), for appellant. Levy Konigsebrg, LLP, New York (Brendan J. Tully of counsel), for respondent.
Mayer Brown LLP, New York (Scott A. Chesin of counsel), for appellant.Levy Konigsebrg, LLP, New York (Brendan J. Tully of counsel), for respondent.
, J.P., ACOSTA, FREEDMAN, KAPNICK, JJ.
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, 628 N.Y.S.2d 72 [1st Dept.1995];Reid v. Georgia–Pacific Corp., 212 A.D.2d 462, 622 N.Y.S.2d 946 [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, 626 N.Y.S.2d 147 [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, 640 N.Y.S.2d 860, 663 N.E.2d 901 [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, 593 N.Y.S.2d 43 [1st Dept1993]affd.82 N.Y.2d 821, 605 N.Y.S.2d 3, 625 N.E.2d 588 [1993] ).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.