New York Asbestos Litigation

In New York, mesothelioma and lung cancer victims can find compensation with the help of an expert mesothelioma lawyer. Exposure to asbestos often causes these kinds of diseases; symptoms may take decades before they manifest.

Judges who oversee the caseload of NYCAL have developed a pattern of favoring plaintiffs. Recent rulings could further weaken the rights of defendants.

Upstate New York asbestos defense litigation, relevant resource site, Litigation Dockets

Asbestos litigation differs from a typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases involve many defendants (companies which are being sued) and law firms representing plaintiffs, and numerous expert witnesses. In addition there are typically specific work sites that are the subject of these cases because asbestos was utilized in a variety products and many workers were exposed to asbestos on the job. Asbestos victims are often diagnosed with serious illnesses like mesothelioma and lung cancer.

New York has a unique approach to asbestos litigation. It is among the biggest dockets across the nation. It is governed by a unique Case Management Order. This CMO was designed to handle asbestos cases involving a large number of defendants. The judges involved in the NYCAL docket have experience in asbestos cases. The docket is also the site of some of the highest plaintiff verdicts in recent history.

New York Court of Appeals made significant changes to the NYCAL docket last week. In 2015, the political system in Albany was shaken to the foundations by the conviction of the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver on federal corruption charges. He had been accused of sabotaging every decently designed 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 head of the NYCAL docket, was dismissed in April 2014 amid reports that she had offered 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 new rules in the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to provide proof that their products are not accountable for the mesothelioma that plaintiffs suffer from. He also instituted new rules that stipulated that he would not dismiss cases until the expert witness testimony had been completed. This new policy will significantly alter the speed of discovery in cases on the NYCAL docket and could result in more favorable outcomes for defendants.

A federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed MDL 875 recently and ordered that all future asbestos cases be transferred to a different District. This should lead to more consistent and efficient handling of these cases, as the MDL currently MDL has earned itself reputation for abuse of discovery, unwarranted sanctions and a lack of evidentiary requirements.

Central New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

After years of corruption and mismanagement by the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the scandals concerning his ties to asbestos lawyers have focused attention on New York City's rigged asbestos docket. Justice Peter Moulton, asbestos defense litigation who now preside over NYCAL, has already held an open Town Hall with defense lawyers to hear complaints about the "rigged" system that favors an asbestos law firm with a strong reputation.

Asbestos lawsuits differ from the typical personal injury lawsuit, with many of the same defendants (companies that are being sued) as well as plaintiffs (people who file lawsuits). Asbestos litigation also generally involves similar job sites where many people were exposed to asbestos, often leading to mesothelioma, lung cancer, or other illnesses. This can result in huge case verdicts, which can block the courts dockets.

To address the problem, several states have adopted laws to limit these types of claims. These laws usually deal with issues such as medical guidelines, two-disease rules, expedited case scheduling, forum shopping, joinders the right to punitive damages and successor liability.

Despite these laws, some states continue see a high number of asbestos lawsuits. In an effort to reduce the number of cases filed and speed up the resolution process, some courts have established special "asbestos dockets" that use a variety of different rules for these cases. The New York City asbestos docket, for example demands that claimants meet specific medical criteria, has a two-disease rule and has an accelerated trial plan.

Certain states have passed laws that limit the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded in asbestos cases. These laws are intended to discourage bad conduct and offer more compensation to the victims. It what is asbestos litigation recommended to consult an New York Mesothelioma Lawyer regardless of whether you file your case in federal or state courts to learn about 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 matters. He has extensive experience in defending clients against claims of exposure to asbestos, lead and World Trade Center dust in both New York and New Jersey. He has also defended cases that claim exposure to other hazards and contaminants, such as noise, mold, vibration and environmental toxics.

Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

New York has seen thousands of deaths due to asbestos exposure. Mesothelioma patients and their families have filed lawsuits in five counties against the manufacturers of asbestos-related products in order to seek compensation. The successful mesothelioma lawsuits make asbestos companies accountable for their rash choices to place profits over public safety.

New York mesothelioma attorneys have expertise in representing clients from all backgrounds in court against the largest asbestos producers in the nation. Their legal strategies can result in a substantial settlement or trial verdict.

Asbestos litigation specializes in asbestos litigation New York has a rich background, and it continues to make headlines. The 2022 national mesothelioma claims report from KCIC declares New York as the third most popular jurisdiction for mesothelioma lawsuit filings, just behind California and Pennsylvania.

The state's judicial system is shaken by the flurry of asbestos lawsuits. In 2015 the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted on federal corruption charges partly related to millions of dollars in referral fees he earned for the politically powerful plaintiffs' law firm Weitz & Luxenberg from handling asbestos cases. Justice Sherry Klein Heitler was named NYCAL's director in the wake of the scandal. She had been managing NYCAL since 2008.

Justice Heitler was succeeded as NYCAL judge by Justice Peter Moulton, who has made it clear that defendants are not entitled to summary judgment unless they can present an "scientifically sound credible, admissible and reliable scientific study" showing the measured amount of exposure a plaintiff received was not sufficient to cause mesothelioma. This eliminates the likelihood that NYCAL defendants will be able to obtain summary judgment.

Justice Moulton also ruled that plaintiffs must prove injury to their health from asbestos exposure to be able for the court to award compensation. This ruling, combined with a ruling from the beginning of 2016 which ruled that medical monitoring is not a tort claim makes it almost impossible for an asbestos defense lawyer to win a NYCAL Summary Motion for Judgment.

In the most recent case, which Judge Toal was the judge in mesothelioma lawsuit brought 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 fundraiser. The lawsuit asserts that DOVER GREENS failed to follow CAA and NESHAP requirements for asbestos by failing to check the campus; notifying EPA prior to commencing renovations and to appropriately remove, store, and dispose of asbestos and have a trained representative on site 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, preventing them to address criminal matters or crucial civil disputes. The overflowing litigation prevented timely payment of deserving victims and innocent families, and caused companies to invest huge amounts of money and resources in defense of these cases.

Asbestos claims are filed by those who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma or any other asbestos-related diseases after being exposed to asbestos in their work environment. Most asbestos exposure litigation claims are filed by construction workers shipyard workers, construction workers, and other tradesmen that worked on buildings constructed or that contain asbestos-containing materials. They were exposed to asbestos fibers that could be harmful during the process of manufacturing or while working on the actual structure.

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

Plaintiffs in these lawsuits contend that their ailments resulted from the negligence of asbestos-related products' manufacture and that the companies failed to warn them of the dangers that come with exposure. While the majority of asbestos cases were brought in state courts, a majority were brought in federal courts.

In the early 1990s, after recognizing that this litigation constituted "terrible calendar congestion," District Judge Jack B. Weinstein and asbestos Litigation New York Supreme Court Justice Helen Freedman jointly consolidated for settlement and pretrial purposes hundreds of federal and state cases which claimed asbestos exposure at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman handled these cases, which were known as the Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation, under the supervision of a Special Master.

Many defendants had been involved in asbestos claims in the past. The list of defendants 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 Corp., and DNS Metal Industries, Inc. were all defendants.