New York Asbestos Litigation

Mesothelioma patients in New York can receive compensation from an attorney for mesothelioma. These diseases are usually caused by asbestos exposure. The symptoms may not show up for many years.

Judges who oversee the cases of NYCAL have crafted a pattern that favors plaintiffs. Recent rulings could further weaken the rights of defendants.

Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

Asbestos litigation differs from a typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases involve many defendants (companies which are being accused of being sued) and law firms representing plaintiffs, and multiple 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 exposed to asbestos while at work. Asbestos-related victims are frequently diagnosed with serious illnesses such as 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 administered by a special Case Management Order. This CMO was created to handle asbestos cases with many defendants. The Judges involved in the NYCAL docket have experience in asbestos cases. The docket is also the scene of some of the largest plaintiff verdicts in recent history.

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 the core when the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted on federal corruption charges. He was accused of sabotaging tort reform legislation in the legislature for a period of 20 years, while also working at the plaintiffs ' firm Weitz & Luxenberg.

Justice Sherry Klein Heitler retired in April 2014 following reports that she gave the Weitz & Luxenberg firm "red carpet treatment". She was replaced by Justice Peter Moulton who implemented several changes to the docket.

Moulton instituted an entirely new rule for the NYCAL docket, which requires that defendants file evidence that their products are not responsible for mesothelioma of plaintiffs. He also implemented an updated policy that states that he wouldn't dismiss cases until the expert witness testimony had been completed. This new policy could have a significant impact on the pace of discovery for cases in the NYCAL docket and could lead to an outcome that is more favorable to defendants.

A federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed MDL 875 in the last few days and ordered that all future asbestos cases be transferred to another District. This should result in more uniform and efficient 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 and mismanagement by the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the scandals regarding his connections to asbestos lawyers have finally brought attention to New York City's asbestos docket that is rigged. Justice Peter Moulton, who is now the head of NYCAL has already held a Town Hall meeting with defense lawyers to hear complaints about the "rigged" system which favors an asbestos law firm that is powerful.

Asbestos lawsuits differ from the typical personal injury case because it involves a lot of the same plaintiffs and defendants. Asbestos cases also typically involve similar workplaces where a lot of people were exposed to asbestos, usually leading to mesothelioma, lung cancer or other illnesses. This can result in large judgments in cases, which can clog the courts dockets.

To address the problem to address the issue, a number of states have enacted laws that 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 reduce the number of cases filed and resolve them faster, some courts have set up special "asbestos dockets" that apply a series of different rules for these cases. The New York City asbestos court, for example requires claimants to meet certain medical criteria as well as has two-disease rules. It also utilizes an accelerated schedule.

Certain states have also passed laws to restrict the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded in asbestos cases. These laws are designed to stop bad behavior and allow for greater compensation to go to victims. It is recommended to consult a New York Mesothelioma Lawyer regardless of whether you decide to file your case in federal or state courts to understand the laws that apply to your 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 extensive experience in representing clients in cases of exposure to asbestos, lead and World Trade Center Dust in both New York City and New Jersey. He is also frequently defending cases that claim exposure to other hazardous substances and contaminants like vibration, noise, mold and environmental contaminants.

Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

Thousands of people have lost their lives from asbestos exposure in New York. In five counties, mesothelioma patients and their families have filed lawsuits against manufacturers of asbestos-based products in order to receive compensation. The successful mesothelioma lawsuits make asbestos companies accountable for their reckless decisions to prioritize profits over public safety.

New York mesothelioma attorneys have the experience of representing clients from all backgrounds against the largest asbestos manufacturers in the country. 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 be the subject of news. According to the 2022 national report on mesothelioma claim submissions by KCIC, New York is the third most popular state in which to file mesothelioma lawsuits, following California and Pennsylvania.

The state's judiciary has been hit 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 which he received from powerful political plaintiffs law firms Weitz & Luxenberg for handling asbestos cases. Justice Sherry Klein Heitler was replaced as NYCAL's manager following the revelations of the scandal. She had been managing NYCAL since the year 2008.

Justice Peter Moulton succeeded Justice Heitler as NYCAL judge. He has declared that defendants won't be able to obtain summary judgment unless they have the existence of a "scientifically credible and admissible study" proving the measured dose of exposure that a plaintiff received was not enough to cause a mesothelioma. This effectively eliminates the possibility that NYCAL defendants will be able to obtain summary judgment.

In addition, Justice Moulton has ruled that a plaintiff has to prove some damage to their health as a result of exposure to asbestos in order for the court to award compensatory damages. This ruling, along with a ruling in early 2016 that ruled that medical monitoring is not a tort claim makes it virtually impossible for asbestos defense lawyers to win a NYCAL motion for summary judgment.

In the latest case, Judge Toal was the judge in mesothelioma lawsuit brought against DOVER Green, the company is accused of not following asbestos work practices regulations when it renovated Manhattan campus buildings in October 2013 to raise funds for a fundraiser. The lawsuit asserts that DOVER GREENS was not following CAA and asbestos lawyers NESHAP regulations by failing to check the Campus; notifying EPA before starting renovation activities; properly remove, store, and dispose of asbestos; and have a trained representative on site during renovation activities.

Eastern New York asbestos lawyer Litigation Dockets

At one point asbestos-related personal injury/death cases clogged federal and state court dockets and depleted judges' judicial resources and prevented them from addressing criminal cases or other crucial civil disputes. The frenzied litigation hindered the timely compensation of deserving victims, irritated innocent families, and caused companies to invest huge amounts of money and resources to defense of these cases.

Asbestos claims can be filed by those diagnosed with mesothelioma, or other asbestos-related ailments, after exposure to asbestos while at work. Most cases are filed by shipyard workers, construction workers employees as well as other tradesmen working on buildings that were or were made with asbestos-containing materials. They were exposed to dangerous asbestos fibers either during the manufacturing process or while working on the actual structure.

Asbestos litigation was the first mass tort. In the late 1970s to early 1980s, asbestos exposure triggered an influx of personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits. This occurred in federal and state courts across the nation.

These lawsuits are filed by plaintiffs who claim that their illnesses were the result of the negligent manufacture of asbestos products. They claim that the companies did not inform them of the dangers of asbestos exposure. While the majority of asbestos cases were filed in state courts, a majority were filed in federal courts.

In the early 1990s, recognizing that the litigation was a "terrible overloaded calendar," District Judge Jack B. Weinstein, and New York Supreme Court justice Helen Freedman consolidated hundreds of federal and State cases involving asbestos exposure at the Brooklyn Navy Yard for settlement as well as pretrial and discovery purposes. Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman handled these cases, which were known as the Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation, under the supervision of a Special Master.

While the bulk of these cases were connected 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, 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 Company Bell/Atlas asbestos lawyer Corp., and DNS Metal Industries, Inc. were all defendants.