New York Asbestos Litigation

In New York, mesothelioma and lung cancer patients can seek compensation through an expert mesothelioma lawyer. Exposure to asbestos often causes these kinds of diseases; symptoms may develop for years before they show up.

The judges who manage the caseload of NYCAL have developed patterns of favoring plaintiffs. Recent rulings could further erode the rights of defendants.

Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

Asbestos litigation is much different than the typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases involve a variety of defendants (companies who are being accused of being sued) as well as multiple law firms representing plaintiffs, and numerous expert witnesses. These cases are often inspired by specific job areas because asbestos was used to make a variety products and many workers were exposed to asbestos during their work. Asbestos sufferers are usually diagnosed with serious diseases such as mesothelioma or lung cancer.

New York has a unique approach to asbestos litigation. In fact, it is one of the largest dockets in the United States. It is managed by a specific Case Management Order. This CMO was created to manage the large number of asbestos cases, involving many defendants. The judges on the NYCAL docket are experienced in asbestos cases. The docket also has seen some of the most prestigious settlements for plaintiffs in recent years.

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 its core when 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 moonlighting at the firm representing plaintiffs 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 some changes to the docket.

Moulton introduced an amendment to the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to submit evidence that their products aren't accountable for the mesothelioma that plaintiffs suffer from. He also implemented new rules that stipulated that he wouldn't dismiss cases until the expert witness testimony was completed. This new rule could have significant effects on the pace of discovery for cases on the NYCAL docket, and could lead to an outcome that is more favorable to 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 another district. This change should lead to more uniform and efficient treatment of these cases. The MDL in its current MDL is infamous 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 and his mismanagement scandals involving Sheldon Silver's ties to asbestos attorneys have finally brought attention to the city's asbestos lawsuit court that is rigged. Justice Peter Moulton is now presided over 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 litigation differs from a typical personal injury case, as it involves many of the same defendants and plaintiffs. Asbestos litigation also generally involves similar job sites where many people were exposed to asbestos, often leading to mesothelioma, lung cancer or other diseases. These cases can result in huge verdicts that could clog dockets of the courts.

To address the issue In order to tackle the issue, a few states have passed laws to limit these types of claims. They typically deal with medical criteria two disease rules, expedited scheduling, joinders and forum shopping, punitive damage and successor liability.

Despite these laws, certain states are still seeing an influx of asbestos lawsuits. Some courts have created special "asbestos Dockets" to help reduce the number of asbestos lawsuits and speed up the resolution of these cases. These dockets follow different rules that are tailored specifically for asbestos 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 employs an accelerated scheduling.

Certain states have also enacted laws to limit the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded in asbestos cases. These laws are meant to deter particularly bad conduct and allow for more compensation to the victims. It is recommended to consult a New York Mesothelioma Lawyer regardless of whether you file your case in state or federal courts to understand the laws applicable to your particular situation.

Alfred Sargente focuses his practice on environmental and toxic tort litigation including commercial litigation, product liability and 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 cases involving exposure to other hazards and contaminants, such as vibration, noise, mold and environmental toxics.

Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

Thousands of people have lost their lives from asbestos exposure in New York. Mesothelioma patients and their families have filed lawsuits in five counties against companies that manufacture of asbestos attorney-related products in order to seek compensation. Mesothelioma lawsuits which are successful hold negligent asbestos companies accountable for their reckless decisions.

New York mesothelioma lawyers are experienced in representing clients from diverse backgrounds against the country's largest asbestos producers. Their legal strategies could lead to a generous verdict or settlement.

Asbestos litigation in New York has a rich history, and continues to be the subject of headlines. According to the report for 2022 on mesothelioma claims filed by KCIC, New York is the third most sought-after jurisdiction where you can file mesothelioma claims, after California and Pennsylvania.

The state's judiciary has been buffeted by the flood of asbestos lawsuits. In 2015, former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted on federal corruption charges partly related to the millions of dollars in referral fees he received from the powerful plaintiffs law firm Weitz & Luxenberg from 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 Peter Moulton succeeded Justice Heitler as NYCAL judge. He has stated that defendants will not be able to obtain summary judgment unless they have the existence of a "scientifically reliable and admissible study" proving the measured dose of exposure that a plaintiff received was not sufficient to cause mesothelioma. This virtually eliminates the possibility that NYCAL defendants are able to get summary judgment.

Justice Moulton also ruled that the plaintiff must show damage to their health as a result of asbestos exposure before the judge to award compensatory damages. This ruling, in combination with a decision in early 2016 that holds that medical monitoring is not a tort claim makes it almost impossible for asbestos defense lawyers to win a NYCAL summary judgment motion.

In the most recent case, which Judge Toal presided over, mesothelioma lawsuit filed against DOVER GREEN, the company is accused of violating asbestos work practice regulations when it renovated Manhattan campus buildings in October 2013 to raise funds for a fundraising event. The lawsuit asserts that DOVER GREENS failed to follow CAA and asbestos lawyers NESHAP requirements by failing to check the campus; notifying EPA prior to beginning renovations; appropriately remove, store, and dispose of asbestos and have a trained representative in place during renovations.

Eastern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

At one point, asbestos personal injury/death cases clogged federal and state court dockets and drained judges' judicial resources, preventing them from addressing criminal cases or other important civil disputes. This bloated litigation hindered the timely compensation of victims and irritated innocent families. Additionally, it caused businesses to spend a lot of money on defense.

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

Asbestos litigation was the first mass tort. In the latter part of the 1970s and 1980s, an avalanche of personal injury and wrongful death cases arising from asbestos exposure was a major issue for courts. This occurred in both state and federal courts across the nation.

These lawsuits are filed by plaintiffs who claim that their illnesses resulted of negligent manufacturing of asbestos products. They also claim that companies failed to inform them of the dangers that come with asbestos exposure. More than half of asbestos lawsuits are filed in federal courts.

In the early 1990s, when they realized 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 federal and state cases that claimed asbestos lawyers exposure at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman handled these cases and were referred to as the Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation, under the supervision of the Special Master.

Many of the defendants were involved in asbestos claims in the past. The defendants listed included Garlock, Inc; H & A Construction Company, as successors 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.