New York Asbestos Litigation
Mesothelioma patients in New York can receive compensation from a mesothelioma attorney. These diseases are usually caused by asbestos exposure. Symptoms may not appear for a long time.
Judges who manage the caseload of NYCAL have developed a pattern that favors plaintiffs. Recent rulings could further undermine the rights of defendants.
Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
Asbestos litigation is different from a typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases involve numerous defendants (companies that are accused of being sued), multiple law firms representing plaintiffs and numerous expert witnesses. These cases are often focused on specific work areas since asbestos was used in the production of a variety products and many workers were exposed to asbestos while at work. Asbestos-related victims are often diagnosed with serious illnesses such as mesothelioma or lung cancer.
New York has a unique approach to asbestos litigation. In fact, it is one of the largest dockets in the country. It is governed by a unique Case Management Order. This CMO was designed to handle large numbers of asbestos cases, involving many defendants. The Judges involved in the NYCAL docket have extensive experience in asbestos cases. The docket is also the scene of some of the most significant plaintiff verdicts in recent history.
The New York Court of Appeals has recently made significant changes to the NYCAL docket. In 2015, the political system in Albany was shaken to the foundations by the conviction of the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver on federal corruption charges. He was accused of sabotaging tort reform bills in the legislature over a period of 20 years while working at the plaintiffs ' firm Weitz & Luxenberg.
Justice Sherry Klein Heitler, the long-time manager of the NYCAL docket, was dismissed in April 2014 amidst reports that she had given the Weitz & Luxenberg law firm "red-carpet treatment." She was replaced by Justice Peter Moulton, who implemented a number of changes to the docket.
Moulton introduced a new rule for the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to submit evidence that their products are not responsible for mesothelioma in plaintiffs. He also implemented a new policy in which he would not dismiss cases until the expert witness testimony had been completed. This new policy will significantly impact the pace of discovery in cases on the NYCAL docket, and could result in better outcomes for defendants.
A federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed MDL 875 in the last few days and ordered that all asbestos cases in the future be transferred to another District. This will result in an efficient and uniform treatment of these cases. The MDL currently MDL is known for its abusive discovery practices and unjustified sanctions, as well as low evidentiary standards.
Central New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
After years of corruption by the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and his mismanagement, the scandals surrounding Sheldon Silver's ties with asbestos attorneys have finally brought attention to the city's asbestos court, which is rigged. Justice Peter Moulton, who is now the head of NYCAL has already held an open Town Hall with defense lawyers to hear complaints about the "rigged" system which favors an asbestos law firm that is powerful.
Asbestos lawsuits differ from a typical personal injury case because it involves a lot of the same plaintiffs and defendants. Asbestos litigation also involves similar job sites, where many people were exposed to asbestos, resulting to mesothelioma and lung cancer. This can result in large case verdicts, which can cause delays in the courts dockets.
To address the issue In order to tackle the issue, a few states have passed laws that limit these kinds of claims. These laws usually deal with issues such as medical requirements, two-disease regulations, expedited case scheduling, joinders, forum shopping, punitive damages and successor liability.
Despite these laws, some states still face a large number of asbestos lawsuits. Some courts have created special "asbestos Dockets" to help reduce the number of asbestos cases and accelerate the resolution of these cases. These dockets follow a variety of rules that are specifically designed for asbestos cases. The New York City asbestos court is one example. It requires applicants to meet certain medical criteria as well as has two-disease rules. It also utilizes an accelerated schedule.
Some states have passed laws that restrict the amount of punitive damage awarded in asbestos cases. These laws are intended to deter particularly bad behavior and allow for greater compensation to the victims. It is recommended to consult a New York Mesothelioma Lawyer regardless of whether you file your case in federal or state courts to know the laws applicable to your particular situation.
Alfred Sargente focuses his practice on toxic tort and environmental litigation including commercial litigation, product liability and general liability matters. He has a wealth of experience in defending clients from claims that claim exposure to asbestos, lead and World Trade Center dust in both New York and New Jersey. He has also defended cases that claim exposure to other hazards and contaminants, such as vibration, noise, mold and environmental contaminants.
Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
New York has seen thousands of deaths caused by asbestos exposure. Mesothelioma patients and their families have filed lawsuits in five counties against the manufacturers of asbestos products to seek compensation. Mesothelioma lawsuits that are successful make asbestos companies liable for their reckless decisions.
New York mesothelioma attorneys have expertise in representing clients from all backgrounds in court against the largest asbestos producers in the nation. Their legal strategies could result in a favorable settlement or trial verdict.
Asbestos litigation in New York has a rich history, and continues to draw attention. The 2022 national mesothelioma claims report by KCIC declares New York as the third most popular state for mesothelioma lawsuit filings, after California and Pennsylvania.
The judicial system of the state has been shook by the flurry of asbestos lawsuits. Sheldon Silver, the former Assembly Speaker, was convicted in 2015 on federal corruption charges in connection with millions of dollars of referral fees which he received from powerful political plaintiffs law firms Weitz & Luxenberg for handling asbestos cases. Justice Sherry Klein Heitler was named NYCAL's manager in the wake of the scandal. She was in charge of NYCAL since 2008.
Justice Peter Moulton succeeded Justice Heitler as NYCAL judge. He has stated that defendants won't be able to obtain summary judgment unless they have a "scientifically credible and admissible study" proving the measured dose of exposure a plaintiff received was not enough to cause a mesothelioma. This effectively eliminates the possibility that NYCAL defendants will be able to secure summary judgment.
Justice Moulton also ruled that the plaintiff must prove some damage to their health due to asbestos exposure to be able for the judge to award compensatory damages. This ruling, in combination with a decision in early 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.
The most recent case on which Judge Toal is presiding of, a mesothelioma case filed against DOVER GREENS, claims that the company violated asbestos work practice regulations when it renovated buildings on the Manhattan campus in October 2013 to host a fundraising event. The lawsuit claims that DOVER GREENS didn't adhere to CAA and Asbestos NESHAP regulations by failing to notify and inspect the EPA prior to beginning renovations, and properly remove, store and dispose of asbestos, and having a properly trained representative on site during renovations.
Eastern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets
At one time asbestos personal injury/death lawsuits were a major blockage of state and federal court dockets and depleted judges' resources for judicial work, preventing them from addressing criminal cases or other important civil disputes. The overflowing litigation prevented prompt compensation of deserving victims, irritated innocent families, and forced companies to invest huge amounts of money and resources for defense of these cases.
Asbestos claims are filed by those diagnosed with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases after exposure to asbestos in their work environment. Most cases are filed by shipyard workers, construction workers employees and other tradesmen working on buildings that were or were made with asbestos-containing materials. They were exposed to asbestos fibers that could be harmful during the manufacturing process or while working on the actual structure.
Asbestos litigation was the first mass tort. In the latter part of the 1970s and 1980s, an avalanche of personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits stemming from asbestos exposure filled the courts. This was the case in federal and state courts across the country.
Santa Monica asbestos lawyers in these lawsuits claim that their ailments were caused by the negligence in the production of asbestos products and that the companies failed to inform them of the dangers associated with such exposure. More than half of asbestos lawsuits are filed in federal court.
In the early 1990s recognizing that the litigation was an "terrible overload of the calendar," District Judge Jack B. Weinstein, and New York Supreme Court justice Helen Freedman consolidated hundreds of state and federal cases involving asbestos exposure at the Brooklyn Navy Yard for settlement or pretrial purposes. Under the supervision of a Special Master, Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman consolidated these cases known as Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation.
While the majority of these cases were related to the Brooklyn Navy Yard, many of the defendants were defendants in other asbestos cases. The defendants list included Garlock, Inc; H & A Construction Company, as successors 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.