New York Asbestos Litigation

In New York, mesothelioma and lung cancer victims can find compensation with the help of an experienced mesothelioma lawyer. Exposure to asbestos often causes these kinds of illnesses. symptoms may develop for years before they appear.

Judges who manage the caseload of NYCAL have developed patterns of favoring plaintiffs. A recent decision could further undermine the rights of defendants.

Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

Asbestos litigation is very different from the typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases involve many defendants (companies which are being accused of being sued), multiple law firms representing plaintiffs and numerous expert witnesses. These cases are usually based on specific job areas because asbestos was used in the production of various products, and a large number of workers were subjected to it while at work. Asbestos-related victims are frequently diagnosed with serious diseases such as mesothelioma and lung cancer.

New York has its own unique approach to handling asbestos litigation. It is among the largest dockets in the United States. It is managed under a special Case Management Order. This CMO was designed to manage asbestos cases that have many defendants. The judges involved in the NYCAL docket are experienced in asbestos cases. The docket has also seen some of the largest settlements for plaintiffs in recent years.

New York Court of Appeals has made major changes to the NYCAL docket recently. In 2015, the political system in Albany was shaken to its foundations by the conviction of the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver on federal corruption charges. He had been accused of killing every reasonably designed tort reform bill in the legislature for more than a decade while working for the plaintiffs' firm Weitz & Luxenberg.

Justice Sherry Klein Heitler retired in April 2014 amid 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 established an entirely new rule for the NYCAL docket, which requires that defendants file proof that their products were not the cause of plaintiffs' mesothelioma. Additionally, he introduced an entirely new procedure in which he did not dismiss cases until expert testimony from witnesses was completed. This new policy will dramatically impact the pace of discovery in cases in the NYCAL docket, and could result in better 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 another district. This will hopefully bring about more consistent and efficient handling of these cases, as the MDL currently MDL has developed reputation for a history of abuse of discovery, unwarranted sanctions and a lack of evidentiary requirements.

Central New York asbestos attorney Litigation Dockets

After years of mismanagement and corruption by the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the scandals regarding his connections 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 attorneys to hear complaints about the "rigged" system that favors one mighty asbestos law firm.

Asbestos lawsuits differ from the typical personal injury lawsuit. It has many of the same defendants (companies who are sued) as well as plaintiffs (people who file the lawsuits). Asbestos litigation can also involve similar workplaces where workers were exposed asbestos, leading to mesothelioma and lung cancer. This can lead to large cases that can cause delays in court dockets.

To address the problem to address the issue, a number of states have enacted laws that limit these kinds of claims. They typically deal with medical requirements two disease rules, expedited scheduling, joinders, forum shopping, punitive damages and successor liability.

Despite these laws, certain states continue to see large numbers of asbestos lawsuits. Certain courts have created special "asbestos Dockets" to reduce the number of asbestos lawsuits and speed up the resolution of these cases. These dockets are governed by different rules specifically designed for asbestos cases. The New York City asbestos court for instance, requires applicants to meet certain medical requirements as well as has two-disease rules. It also employs an accelerated scheduling.

Certain states have passed laws that restrict the amount of punitive damage awarded in asbestos cases. These laws are designed to deter particularly bad behavior and allow for greater compensation to go to victims. You should speak with an New York Mesothelioma Lawyer regardless of whether you decide to 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 product liability, commercial litigation and general liability matters. He has extensive experience in defending clients against claims of exposure to asbestos, Lead and World Trade Center Dust in both New York City and New Jersey. He also regularly defends cases that claim exposure to other contaminants and hazards, such as vibration, noise, mold and environmental toxins.

Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

Thousands of people have died from asbestos exposure in New York. Mesothelioma patients and their families have filed lawsuits in five counties against manufacturers of asbestos products to seek compensation. Mesothelioma lawsuits which are successful hold negligent asbestos companies accountable for their rash decisions.

New York mesothelioma attorneys have experience representing clients of all backgrounds against the largest asbestos producers in the nation. 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 claim filings by KCIC, New York is the third most popular state where you can file a mesothelioma suit after California and Pennsylvania.

The state's judiciary has been buffeted by the flood of asbestos lawsuits (Highly recommended Resource site). Sheldon Silver, the former Assembly Speaker, was convicted in 2015 of federal corruption charges related to millions of dollar referral fees that he received from the politically powerful plaintiffs' law firms Weitz & Luxenberg for handling asbestos cases. After the scandal, Justice Sherry Klein Heitler who was in charge of NYCAL since 2008, was dismissed amid reports that she had given "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 without a "scientifically credible and admissible study" showing that the measured amount of exposure a plaintiff received was not enough to cause a mesothelioma. This effectively eliminates the possibility that NYCAL defendants are able to get summary judgment.

Justice Moulton also ruled that plaintiffs must prove health harm suffered from asbestos exposure to be able for the court to award compensatory damage. This ruling, along with a decision in early 2016 that held that medical monitoring is not a tort, makes it nearly impossible for an asbestos attorney defense lawyer to prevail on a NYCAL summary judgment motion.

In the case that Judge Toal presided over, mesothelioma-related lawsuits brought against DOVER Green, a company that is accused of violating asbestos work practice regulations when it renovated Manhattan campus buildings in October 2013 to raise funds for a charity. The lawsuit claims that DOVER GREENS did not follow CAA and Asbestos NESHAP regulations by failing to notify and inspect the EPA prior to beginning renovations, and properly removing, storing and dispose of asbestos and having a properly trained representative on site during renovations.

Eastern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

At one point asbestos-related personal injury/death cases filled state and federal court dockets and drained judges' resources for judicial work which prevented them from dealing with criminal cases or other important civil disputes. The bloated litigation impeded the timely compensation of victims and frustrated innocent families. It also caused companies to spend excessive amounts of money on defense.

Asbestos claims are filed by those who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma or any other asbestos-related diseases after exposure to asbestos in a workplace environment. The majority of 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 dangerous asbestos fibers either during the process of manufacturing or when working on the actual structure.

Asbestos litigation was the first mass tort. In the late 1970s and early 1980s an avalanche of personal injury and wrongful death cases arising from asbestos exposure engulfed the courts. This was the case in federal and state courts across the country.

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits claim that their ailments resulted from the negligence in the production of asbestos products and that companies did not warn them about the dangers that come with exposure. More than half of asbestos lawsuits are filed in federal court.

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 state and federal cases that alleged asbestos exposure at the Brooklyn Navy Yard for settlement, pretrial, and discovery purposes. Under the supervision of a Special Master, Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman consolidated these cases known as Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation.

While the bulk of these cases were relating to the Brooklyn Navy Yard, many of the defendants were common defendants in other asbestos cases. The defendants list included Garlock, Inc; H & A Construction Company, as a successor and individually 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 Corp.; and DNS Metal Industries, Inc.