Notes

15 Up-And-Coming Trends About Ny Asbestos Litigation
New York Asbestos Litigation

Mesothelioma sufferers in New York can receive compensation from an attorney for mesothelioma. These diseases are usually brought on by exposure to asbestos. Symptoms may not appear for many years.

Judges who oversee the caseload of NYCAL have developed a pattern of favoring plaintiffs. A recent decision could further undermine defendants' rights.

Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

Asbestos litigation is distinct from the typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases involve numerous defendants (companies who are being sued) as well as multiple law firms representing plaintiffs, and numerous expert witnesses. These cases usually are focused on specific work sites because asbestos was used in the production of a variety products and many workers were subjected to it at work. Asbestos-related victims are often diagnosed with serious illnesses like mesothelioma and lung cancer.

New York has its own unique approach to handling asbestos litigation. In fact, it is one of the largest dockets across the nation. It is administered under a special Case Management Order. This CMO was created to handle asbestos cases with many defendants. The judges who are part of the NYCAL docket are experienced in asbestos cases. The docket has also witnessed some of the largest award for plaintiffs in recent times.

New York Court of Appeals made significant changes to the NYCAL docket recently. In 2015 the political establishment in Albany was shaken to the foundation when the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted on federal corruption charges. He had been accused of destroying every reasonable created tort reform bill that was passed by the legislature for more than 20 years, while working for the plaintiffs firm Weitz & Luxenberg.

Justice Sherry Klein Heitler, the long-time head 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 introduced a variety of changes to the docket.

Moulton introduced new rules in the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to present proof that their products are not accountable for the plaintiffs' mesothelioma. Additionally, he introduced the new policy that he did not dismiss cases until all expert witness testimony was complete. This new rule could have a significant impact on the speed of discovery in cases on the NYCAL docket, and could lead to a more favorable outcome for defendants.

In other New York asbestos news, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia recently dismissed MDL 875 and ordered all future asbestos cases to be transferred to a different district. This will result in more uniform and efficient treatment of these cases. The current MDL is infamous for its discovery abuse as well as its unjustified sanction and low evidentiary standards.

Central New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

After years of mismanagement and corruption by former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the scandals concerning his ties to asbestos lawyers have brought attention to New York City's rigged asbestos docket. Justice Peter Moulton is now the head of NYCAL and has already held a town hall with defense lawyers to hear complaints about the "rigged" system that favors one mighty asbestos law firm.

Asbestos lawsuits differ from a typical personal injury case because it involves a number of the same defendants and plaintiffs. Asbestos litigation also generally involves similar workplaces where a lot of workers were exposed to asbestos, often leading to mesothelioma, lung cancer or other diseases. These cases can result in huge verdicts that can block court dockets.

To address the issue to address the issue, a number of states have enacted laws to limit these types of claims. These laws usually address medical criteria two disease rules, expedited scheduling, joinders, forum shopping, punitive damage and successor liability.

Despite these laws some states continue to see a significant number of asbestos lawsuits. In an effort to cut down on the number of lawsuits filed and to speed up their resolution, some courts have set up special "asbestos dockets" that use a variety of different rules to these cases. The New York City asbestos docket, for example demands that claimants meet certain medical requirements and also has a rule of two diseases and has an accelerated trial plan.

Certain states have passed laws that limit the amount of punitive damages given in asbestos cases. These laws are designed to discourage particularly bad behavior and offer more compensation to the victims. No matter if your case is filed in a state or federal court, you should consult with an New York mesothelioma lawyer to know how these laws impact your particular situation.

Alfred Sargente concentrates his practice in toxic tort and environment litigation including product liability, commercial and toxic tort litigation. He also handles general liability issues. He has a wealth of experience in defending clients against claims alleging exposure to lead, asbestos and World Trade Center dust in both New York and New Jersey. He has also defended cases alleging exposure to other hazardous substances and contaminants like noise, mold, vibration and environmental toxics.

Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

New York has seen thousands of deaths due to asbestos exposure. Across five counties, mesothelioma sufferers and their loved ones have filed lawsuits against manufacturers of asbestos-based products to recover compensation. Mesothelioma lawsuits that are successful hold negligent asbestos companies responsible for their rash decisions.

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 background, and it continues to draw attention. According to the 2022 national report on mesothelioma claims filed by KCIC, New York is the third most popular jurisdiction in which to file mesothelioma claims, after California and Pennsylvania.

The state's judicial system 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 he received from politically powerful plaintiffs' law firms Weitz & Luxenberg for handling asbestos cases. After the scandal, Justice Sherry Klein Heitler, who had managed NYCAL since 2008, was replaced amidst reports that she had given "red-carpet treatment" to Weitz & Luxenberg asbestos lawsuits.

Justice Heitler was succeeded as NYCAL judge by Justice Peter Moulton, who has made it clear that defendants are not entitled to summary judgment unless they can present an "scientifically sound credible, admissible and reliable scientific study" that proves the amount of exposure a plaintiff received was not sufficient to cause mesothelioma. This effectively ends the possibility that NYCAL defendants can obtain summary judgment.

Additionally, Justice Moulton has ruled that a plaintiff must prove some injury to their health from exposure to asbestos for the court to award compensatory damages. This ruling, combined with a decision made in early 2016 which ruled that medical monitoring was not a tort claim makes it virtually impossible for an asbestos defense lawyer to prevail on 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 practices regulations when it renovated buildings on the Manhattan campus in October 2013 to host a fundraising event. The lawsuit asserts that DOVER GREENS didn't follow CAA and asbestos NESHAP regulations, failing to inspect and notify the EPA prior to commencing renovation activities, properly remove, store and dispose of asbestos, and appointing a trained representative on site during renovations.

Eastern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

Asbestos-related personal death and injury cases were a major source of delays in federal court dockets and judges' resources were depleted, making it impossible for them from addressing criminal cases or other important civil disputes. This bloated litigation impeded the prompt compensation of deserving victims, frustrated innocent families, and caused firms to commit huge amounts of money and resources for defense of these cases.

Asbestos claims are filed by people diagnosed with mesothelioma, or other asbestos-related ailments, after being exposed to asbestos while at work. The majority of cases are filed by construction workers, shipyard employees and other tradesmen who worked on structures that contained or were constructed with asbestos-containing materials. These individuals were exposed by dangerous asbestos fibers either during the process of manufacturing or while working on the structure.

Asbestos litigation was the first mass tort. In the latter part of the 1970s and 1980s there was a flurry of personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits stemming from exposure to asbestos was a major issue for courts. This happened in state and federal courts across the nation.

These lawsuits are brought by plaintiffs who claim their illnesses resulted from the negligence of asbestos manufacturing products. They also claim that companies failed to 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, 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 federal and State cases that alleged asbestos exposure at the Brooklyn Navy Yard for settlement, pretrial, and discovery purposes. Murfreesboro asbestos lawyer and Justice Freedman handled these cases and were referred to as the Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation, under the supervision of a Special Master.

Many defendants were involved in other asbestos-related claims. The list of defendants included Garlock, Inc; H & A Construction Company, individually and as successor 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.

Here's my website: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ItS06d7GVY