New York Asbestos Litigation

In New York, mesothelioma and lung cancer patients can seek compensation through an experienced mesothelioma lawyer. These diseases are usually caused by exposure to asbestos. Symptoms may not appear for many years.

Judges who manage the caseload of NYCAL have developed an inclination to favor plaintiffs. A recent decision could further undermine defendants' rights.

Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

Asbestos litigation is very different than the typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases involve numerous defendants (companies who are being sued) and law firms representing plaintiffs, and numerous expert witnesses. In addition, there are usually specific work sites which are the focus of these cases due to asbestos was employed in a variety of products and a lot of workers were exposed to it while working. Asbestos victims often suffer from serious illnesses such as mesothelioma or lung cancer.

New York has a unique approach to asbestos litigation. It is one of the largest dockets across the nation. It is governed under a special Case Management Order. This CMO was designed to handle asbestos cases involving numerous defendants. The judges on the NYCAL docket have extensive experience in asbestos cases. The docket has also witnessed some of the most prestigious plaintiff awards in recent history.

The New York Court of Appeals has recently made significant changes to the NYCAL docket. In 2015, the political system in Albany was shaken to its core when the court convicted the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver on federal corruption charges. Silver was accused of killing every reasonably created tort reform bill that was passed by 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 had given the Weitz & Luxenberg firm "red carpet treatment". She was replaced by Justice Peter Moulton who implemented some changes to the docket.

Moulton established an entirely new rule for the NYCAL docket, which requires defendants to submit proof that their products were not the cause of plaintiffs' mesothelioma. In addition, he instituted the new policy that he did not dismiss cases until expert testimony from witnesses was completed. This new policy will significantly impact the pace of discovery in cases in the NYCAL docket and could result in more favorable outcomes for defendants.

A federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed MDL 875 last week and ordered that all asbestos cases in the future be transferred to another District. This will result in more uniform and efficient treatment of these cases. The MDL in its current MDL is infamous for its discovery abuse, unwarranted sanction and low evidentiary standards.

Central New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

After years of mismanagement and corruption by the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the scandals regarding his connections to asbestos lawyers have finally attracted the attention of the asbestos docket that is rigged. Justice Peter Moulton is now presiding over NYCAL and has already held a town hall with defense lawyers to hear complaints about a "rigged" system that favors one powerful asbestos law firm.

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

To address the problem, several states have adopted laws that limit these types of claims. They typically address issues including medical guidelines, two-disease rules, expedited case scheduling, forum shopping, joinders the right to punitive damages and successor liability.

Despite these laws, certain states are still seeing an influx of asbestos lawsuits. In an effort to cut down on the number of cases filed and resolve them faster, some courts have established special "asbestos dockets" that apply a series of different rules for these cases. The New York City asbestos docket for instance is one that requires applicants to meet certain medical requirements and has a two-disease rule and utilizes an expedited trial schedule.

Some states have passed laws that limit the amount of punitive damage awarded in asbestos cases. These laws are designed to stop 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 state or federal courts to learn about the laws that apply to your situation.

Alfred Sargente focuses his practice on environmental and toxic tort litigation, commercial litigation, product liability and general liability matters. He has vast experience the defense of clients against claims of exposure to asbestos, lead and World Trade Center Dust in both New York City and New Jersey. He defends clients regularly against claims that claim exposure to a variety of other hazardous substances and contaminants such as solvents and chemical and noise, mold, vibration and environmental contaminants.

Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

New York has seen thousands of deaths caused by asbestos exposure. In five counties, mesothelioma patients and their families have filed lawsuits against companies of asbestos-based products in order to receive compensation. Mesothelioma lawsuits which are successful hold negligent asbestos companies responsible for their reckless choices.

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

Asbestos litigation in New York has a rich history, and continues to be the subject of headlines. The 2022 national mesothelioma lawsuit report from KCIC lists New York as the third most popular jurisdiction for mesothelioma lawsuit filings, following California and Pennsylvania.

The state's judicial system is shaken by the flurry of asbestos lawsuits. In 2015, former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted on federal corruption charges that were linked to millions of dollars in referral fees he earned from 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 have a "scientifically solid credible, admissible and reliable scientific study" that proves the amount of exposure a plaintiff received was not enough to cause mesothelioma. This effectively eliminates the chance that NYCAL defendants will be able to obtain summary judgment.

In addition, Justice Moulton has ruled that a plaintiff has to prove an injury to their health due to exposure to asbestos for the court to make a decision on compensatory damages. This ruling, in combination with a decision in early 2016 that ruled that medical monitoring is not a tort claim makes it nearly impossible for an asbestos lawyer, click here to visit writeablog.net for free, defense lawyer to prevail on a NYCAL motion for summary judgment.

In the most recent case, which Judge Toal was in charge of mesothelioma-related lawsuits filed 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 money for a fundraiser. The lawsuit asserts that DOVER GREENS didn't follow CAA and Asbestos NESHAP regulations by failing to notify and inspect the EPA prior to commencing renovations, and properly remove, store and dispose of asbestos and appointing a trained representative on site during renovations.

Eastern New York asbestos lawsuit Litigation Dockets

Asbestos-related personal lawsuits for death and injury clogged federal court dockets, and judges' judicial resource were drained, making it difficult for them from addressing criminal matters or other important civil disputes. This bloated litigation impeded the prompt compensation of deserving victims, irritated innocent families, and prompted companies to invest huge amounts of money and resources to defense of these cases.

Asbestos claims are filed by people diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases, after exposure to asbestos in the workplace. Most asbestos claims are filed by construction employees shipyard workers, construction workers, and other tradesmen that worked on structures made of or containing asbestos-containing materials. They were exposed to dangerous asbestos fibers during the manufacturing process or while working on the structure itself.

Asbestos litigation was the first mass tort. In the late 1970s and early 1980s there was a flurry of personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits stemming from exposure to asbestos was a major issue for courts. This was the case in state and federal courts across the nation.

Plaintiffs in these lawsuits argue that their ailments resulted from the negligent manufacture of asbestos products and that companies failed to warn them of 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 an "terrible overload of the calendar," District Judge Jack B. Weinstein and New York Supreme Court justice Helen Freedman consolidated hundreds of federal and State cases that alleged asbestos exposure at the Brooklyn Navy Yard for settlement, pretrial, and discovery purposes. Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman handled these cases that were later known as the Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation, under the supervision of a Special Master.

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