New York Asbestos Litigation

In New York, mesothelioma and lung cancer victims can find compensation through an expert mesothelioma lawyer. Asbestos exposure is a common cause of these types of illnesses; symptoms may take decades before they show up.

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

Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

Asbestos litigation is different from the typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases involve numerous defendants (companies who are being accused of being sued) and law firms representing plaintiffs as well as multiple expert witnesses. These cases are often inspired by specific job areas since asbestos was used to create various products, and a large number of workers were subjected to it while at work. Asbestos sufferers often develop serious diseases like mesothelioma and lung cancer.

New York has its own unique way of handling asbestos litigation. In fact, it's one of the largest dockets in the United States. It is governed by a unique Case Management Order. This CMO was designed to manage asbestos cases with a large number of defendants. The judges on the NYCAL docket have experience in asbestos cases. The docket has also witnessed some of the most prestigious award for plaintiffs in recent times.

New York Court of Appeals made some major changes to the NYCAL docket recently. In 2015 the political establishment in Albany was shaken to its base when the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted on federal corruption charges. He was accused of sabotaging tort reform bills in the legislature for more than 20 years, while moonlighting 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 introduced a variety of changes to the docket.

Moulton instituted a new rule for the NYCAL docket that requires that defendants file evidence that their products were not the cause of mesothelioma in plaintiffs. In addition, he implemented a new practice in which he did not dismiss cases until all expert witness testimony was complete. This new rule could have an impact on the speed of discovery for cases in the NYCAL docket and could result in an outcome that is more favorable to 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 will hopefully bring about more uniform and efficient handling of these cases, as the MDL currently MDL has earned reputation for abuse of discovery as well as unjustified sanctions and minimal evidentiary requirements.

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 the rigged asbestos docket. Justice Peter Moulton is now the head of NYCAL and has already held a town hall meeting with defense attorneys to hear complaints about the "rigged" system that favors one mighty asbestos law firm.

Asbestos lawsuits differ from a typical personal injury lawsuit, as it involves many of the same plaintiffs and defendants. Asbestos litigation also generally involves similar work sites where a large number of people were exposed to asbestos, usually leading to mesothelioma or lung cancer, as well as other diseases. These cases can result in huge verdicts that can clog the court dockets.

To limit this problem A number of states have passed laws to restrict the types of claims that can be made. These laws typically address issues including medical requirements, two-disease regulations and expedited case scheduling joinders, forum shopping, punitive damages and successor liability.

Despite these laws, some states continue to see a significant number 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 apply different rules specifically designed for asbestos cases. The New York City asbestos attorney docket for instance, requires claimants to meet certain medical requirements and also has a rule of two diseases and has an accelerated trial plan.

Certain states have also passed laws that limit the amount of punitive damages awarded in asbestos cases. These laws are intended to deter bad behavior and provide greater compensation to the victims. No matter if your case is filed in a state or federal court, you must work with a New York mesothelioma lawyer to understand how these laws affect your particular situation.

Alfred Sargente focuses his practice on toxic tort and environmental litigation as well as product liability, commercial litigation and general liability issues. 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 also regularly defends cases that claim exposure to other hazardous substances and contaminants, such as vibration, noise, mold and environmental toxins.

Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

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

New York mesothelioma lawyers are skilled in representing clients from different backgrounds against the nation's most significant asbestos manufacturers. Their legal strategies could result in an enormous settlement or verdict.

Asbestos litigation in New York has a rich history, and it continues to make headlines. The 2022 mesothelioma claim national report by KCIC declares New York as the third most popular jurisdiction for mesothelioma lawsuits, just behind California and Pennsylvania.

The state's judiciary has been buffeted by the flood of asbestos lawsuits. Sheldon Silver, the former Assembly Speaker, was convicted in 2015 of federal corruption charges relating to 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 replaced as NYCAL's manager following the revelations of the scandal. She had been in charge of NYCAL since the year 2008.

Justice Heitler was succeeded as NYCAL judge by Justice Peter Moulton, who has clarified that defendants cannot obtain summary judgment unless they have an "scientifically solid valid, credible and admissible scientific study" that shows the measured exposure of a plaintiff was not enough to cause 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 his or her health due to exposure to asbestos for the court to make a decision on compensatory damages. This ruling, when combined with a ruling in early 2016 that ruled that medical monitoring is not a tort claim, makes it almost impossible for an asbestos defense lawyer to prevail on a NYCAL summary judgment motion.

In the latest case, Judge Toal presided over, mesothelioma-related lawsuits 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 fundraising event. The lawsuit claims that DOVER GREENS was not following CAA and Asbestos NESHAP regulations by failing to conduct an inspection of the Campus; inform EPA prior to beginning renovations; properly remove, store, and dispose of asbestos; and have a trained representative present during renovations.

Eastern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

Asbestos-related personal lawsuits for death and injury filled up federal court dockets and judges' resources were drained, making it difficult for them to address criminal matters or other important civil disputes. This bloated litigation hindered the timely settlement of victims and frustrated innocent families. It also caused companies to spend excessive amounts of money on defense.

asbestos lawyer claims are filed by people who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma or any other asbestos-related diseases following being exposed to asbestos in their work environment. Most cases are filed by construction workers, shipyard employees as well as other tradesmen working on buildings that were or were constructed with asbestos-containing materials. These workers were exposed asbestos fibers that were dangerous in the manufacturing process or while working on the actual structure.

The first significant mass tort was asbestos litigation. In the late 1970s to early 1980s, asbestos exposure caused an explosion of personal injury and wrongful deaths lawsuits. This was the case in both state and federal court across the country.

These lawsuits are filed by plaintiffs who claim that their illnesses resulted of the negligent manufacture of asbestos products. They claim that the companies did not 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 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. Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman handled these cases that were later called the Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation, under the supervision of a Special Master.

Many of the defendants were involved in other asbestos claims. 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 Corporation, Bell/Atlas Asbestos Corp., and DNS Metal Industries, Inc. were all defendants.