New York Asbestos Litigation

In New York, mesothelioma and lung cancer patients can seek compensation with the help of an expert mesothelioma lawyer. These diseases are usually caused by asbestos exposure. Symptoms may not appear for many years.

Judges who oversee NYCAL's caseload have developed an inclination to favor plaintiffs. A recent ruling could further weaken defendants' rights.

Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

Asbestos litigation is much different from the typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases include multiple defendants (companies being sued) and multiple law firms representing plaintiffs, and multiple expert witness. These cases usually are based on specific job areas because asbestos was used to make various products and a lot of workers were exposed to asbestos while at work. Asbestos sufferers often develop serious illnesses like mesothelioma or lung cancer.

New York has its own unique way of handling asbestos litigation. In reality, it is one of the largest dockets across the nation. It is controlled by a specific Case Management Order. This CMO was created to manage large numbers of asbestos cases, involving a multitude of defendants. The judges who are part of the NYCAL docket have 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 system in Albany was rocked to its foundations by the conviction of former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver on federal corruption charges. Silver was accused of sabotaging every decently crafted tort reform bill in the legislature for more than a decade while working for the plaintiffs firm Weitz & Luxenberg.

Justice Sherry Klein Heitler, the long-time supervisor of the NYCAL docket, retired in April 2014 amid reports that she'd 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 in the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to present proof that their products are not accountable for the mesothelioma that plaintiffs suffer from. In addition, he instituted the new policy that he would not dismiss cases until all expert witness testimony was complete. This new rule will greatly alter 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 future asbestos cases to be transferred to a different district. This change should lead to an efficient and uniform treatment of these cases. The current MDL is known for its abuse of discovery as well as its unjustified sanction and 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 connections to asbestos attorneys have finally brought attention to New York City’s rigged asbestos court. Justice Peter Moulton is now presided over NYCAL and has already held a town hall meeting with defense lawyers to hear complaints about the "rigged" system that favors one powerful asbestos law firm.

Asbestos lawsuits differ from the typical personal injury lawsuit, with many of the same defendants (companies who are being sued) as well as plaintiffs (people who file lawsuits). Asbestos litigation also includes similar job sites where workers were exposed to asbestos, resulting to mesothelioma and lung cancer. This can lead large verdicts that can clog the dockets of the courts.

To combat this issue, several states have passed laws that restrict the types of claims that can be filed. These laws typically address medical requirements, two disease rules, expedited scheduling, joinders and forum shopping, punitive damages and successor liability.

Despite these laws states are still seeing large numbers of asbestos lawsuits. Some courts have created special "asbestos attorney Dockets" to reduce the number of asbestos lawsuits and speed up the resolution of these cases. These dockets are governed by various rules that are specifically designed for asbestos cases. The New York City asbestos docket for instance demands that claimants meet certain medical requirements, has a two-disease rule and has an accelerated trial plan.

Some states have passed laws that limit the amount of punitive damage given in asbestos cases. These laws are designed to discourage particularly bad behavior and offer more compensation to victims. It is recommended to consult a New York Mesothelioma Lawyer regardless of whether you file your case in state or federal courts to learn about the laws that apply to your case.

Alfred Sargente concentrates his practice in environmental and toxic tort litigation as well as product liability and commercial litigation. He also handles general liability issues. He has extensive experience defending clients from claims that claim exposure to lead, asbestos and World Trade Center dust in both New York and New Jersey. He has also defended claims that claim exposure to a variety of other hazardous substances and contaminants such as chemical and solvents and vibration, noise, mold and environmental contaminants.

Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

Many people have died from asbestos exposure in New York. In 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 make asbestos companies accountable for their reckless decisions to place profits over public safety.

New York mesothelioma lawyers are skilled in representing clients from different backgrounds against the nation's largest asbestos producers. Their legal strategies can result in a favorable settlement or trial verdict.

Asbestos litigation has a long history in New York, and continues to make headlines. According to the 2022 report on mesothelioma claim filings by KCIC, New York is the third most popular jurisdiction where you can file a mesothelioma suit after California and Pennsylvania.

The state's judiciary has been hit by the flood of asbestos lawsuits. Sheldon Silver, the former Assembly Speaker, was found guilty in 2015 on federal corruption charges relating to millions of dollar referral fees which he received from powerful political plaintiffs' law firms Weitz & Luxenberg for handling asbestos cases. Following the scandal, Justice Sherry Klein Heitler who was in charge of NYCAL since 2008, was replaced amidst reports that she provided "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 get summary judgment unless they have a "scientifically reliable and admissible study" showing that the measured amount of exposure a plaintiff received was not enough to trigger 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 prove an injury to his or her health due to exposure to asbestos for a court to give compensatory damages. This ruling, along with a decision from early 2016 that ruled that medical monitoring was not a tort, makes it nearly impossible for an asbestos defense lawyer to win a NYCAL Summary Judgment motion.

The most recent case on which Judge Toal is presiding, a mesothelioma lawsuit filed against DOVER GREENS, alleges that the company was in violation of asbestos work practice regulations when it renovated buildings on the Manhattan campus in October 2013 to host an event for fundraising. The lawsuit claims that DOVER GREENS did not follow CAA and Asbestos NESHAP regulations by failing to inspect the Campus; inform EPA before starting renovation activities; properly remove, store and dispose of asbestos; and have a trained representative in place during renovations.

Eastern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

At one time asbestos-related personal injury/death cases were a major blockage of state and federal court dockets and depleted judges' judicial resources, preventing them from addressing criminal matters 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 Lawsuit claims are filed by individuals diagnosed with mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases after exposure to asbestos in a workplace environment. The majority of cases are filed by construction workers, shipyard employees as well as 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 actual structure.

The first significant mass tort was asbestos litigation. In the late 1970s to early 1980s, asbestos exposure led to a flood of personal injury and wrongful deaths lawsuits. This happened in both state and federal courts across the nation.

Plaintiffs in these lawsuits contend that their ailments were caused by the negligence in the production of asbestos lawyers products and that the companies failed to inform them of the dangers of asbestos exposure. More than half of asbestos lawsuits are filed in federal courts.

In the early 1990s, 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 cases that alleged exposure to asbestos at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman handled these cases and were called the Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation, under the supervision of a Special Master.

Many defendants were involved in other asbestos-related claims. The defendants were Garlock, Inc, H & A Construction Company, as successors to Spraycraft Corporation, CRH, Inc. and successors 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.