New York Asbestos Litigation

In New York, mesothelioma and lung cancer patients can seek compensation through an experienced mesothelioma lawyer. These diseases are usually brought on by exposure to asbestos. The symptoms may not be apparent for decades.

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

Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

Asbestos litigation is much different than the typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases involve many defendants (companies which are being accused of being sued) and law firms representing plaintiffs and multiple expert witnesses. These cases are often based on specific job locations because asbestos was used to create various products, and a large number of workers were exposed to asbestos attorney at work. Asbestos victims are often diagnosed with serious diseases such as mesothelioma and lung cancer.

New York has its own unique way of handling asbestos litigation. In fact, it's one of the largest dockets across the nation. It is governed by a special Case Management Order. This CMO was designed to manage asbestos cases with many defendants. The Judges involved in the NYCAL docket have extensive experience in asbestos cases. The docket also is the location of some of the most significant plaintiff verdicts in recent times.

The New York Court of Appeals has recently made some significant changes to the NYCAL docket. In 2015 the political system in Albany was shaken to its core when the court convicted former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver on federal corruption charges. He was accused of killing tort reform bills in the legislature for a period of 20 years while working at 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 several changes to the docket.

Moulton introduced a new rule for the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to submit evidence that their products were not responsible for plaintiffs' mesothelioma. He also implemented an updated policy that states that he wouldn't dismiss cases until the expert witness testimony had been completed. This new policy could have significant effects on the pace of discovery for cases on 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 asbestos cases in the future to be transferred to another district. This change should lead to an efficient and uniform treatment of these cases. The current MDL is infamous for its discovery abuse, unwarranted sanction and inadequate evidentiary standards.

Central New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

After years of mismanagement and corruption by the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the scandals concerning his ties to asbestos lawyers - Postheaven says, have brought attention to the asbestos docket that is rigged. Justice Peter Moulton is now presided over NYCAL and has already held a town hall meeting with defense lawyers to hear complaints about a "rigged" system that favors one mighty asbestos law firm.

Asbestos lawsuits differ from the typical personal injury lawsuit, which has many of the same defendants (companies that are being sued) as well as plaintiffs (people who file the lawsuits). Asbestos cases also typically involve similar workplaces where a lot of people were exposed to asbestos, often leading to mesothelioma, lung cancer, or other illnesses. This can result in huge judgments in cases, which can block the courts dockets.

To address the issue In order to tackle the issue, a few states have passed laws to limit these types of claims. These laws typically cover issues like medical requirements, two-disease regulations, expedited case scheduling, joinders, forum shopping, consequential damages, and successor liability.

Despite these laws states continue to see large numbers of asbestos lawsuits. Some courts have created special "asbestos Dockets" to reduce the number of asbestos cases and accelerate the resolution of these cases. These dockets apply different rules that are tailored specifically for asbestos attorney cases. The New York City asbestos court for instance, requires applicants to meet certain medical criteria, has two-disease rules and utilizes an accelerated schedule.

Some states have also passed laws that limit the amount of punitive damages that can be awarded in asbestos cases. These laws are designed to discourage particularly harmful behavior and allow for greater compensation to be awarded to victims. It is recommended to consult a New York Mesothelioma Lawyer regardless of whether you decide to file your case in state or federal courts to know the laws applicable to your particular situation.

Alfred Sargente concentrates his practice in toxic tort and environment litigation as well as product liability and commercial litigation. He also is a specialist in general liability issues. He has a wealth of experience representing clients in cases of exposure to asbestos, Lead and World Trade Center Dust in both New York City and New Jersey. He has also defended claims that claim exposure to a variety of other contaminants and hazards such as chemical and solvents and vibration, noise, mold and environmental toxins.

Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

New York has seen thousands of deaths resulting from asbestos exposure. In five counties, mesothelioma victims and their families have filed lawsuits against companies of asbestos-based products for compensation. Mesothelioma lawsuits which are successful hold negligent asbestos companies accountable for their rash decisions.

New York mesothelioma lawyers are adept at representing clients with different backgrounds against the nation's largest asbestos manufacturers. Their legal strategies could lead to an enormous settlement or verdict.

Asbestos litigation has a long-standing history in New York, and continues to be the subject of news. The 2022 national mesothelioma lawsuit report from KCIC declares New York as the third most popular jurisdiction for mesothelioma lawsuits, following California and Pennsylvania.

The state's judiciary has been impacted by the influx of asbestos lawsuits. Sheldon Silver, the former Assembly Speaker, was found guilty in 2015 on federal corruption charges related to millions of dollar referral fees which he received from powerful political plaintiffs' law firms Weitz & Luxenberg for handling asbestos cases. Justice Sherry Klein Heitler was appointed NYCAL's director in the wake of the scandal. She had been managing NYCAL since the year 2008.

Justice Heitler was succeeded as NYCAL judge by Justice Peter Moulton, who has made it clear that defendants cannot obtain summary judgment unless they can present an "scientifically solid, reliable and admissible scientific study" showing the measured amount of exposure a plaintiff received was not sufficient 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 must prove some damage to his or her health as a result of exposure to asbestos for a court to make a decision on compensatory damages. This ruling, along with a ruling in early 2016 that holds that medical monitoring is not a tort, makes it nearly impossible for an asbestos attorney defense lawyer to win a NYCAL motion for summary judgment.

The most recent case, in which Judge Toal is in charge of, a mesothelioma case filed against DOVER GREENS, alleges that the company violated asbestos work practice regulations when it renovated buildings on the Manhattan campus in October 2013 for a fundraising event. The lawsuit claims that DOVER GREENS didn't adhere to CAA and Asbestos NESHAP regulations by failing to inspect and notify the EPA prior to beginning renovations, or to properly remove, store and dispose of asbestos and appointing a trained representative on site during renovations.

Eastern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

Asbestos-related personal lawsuits for death and injury were a major source of delays in federal court dockets and judges' judicial resources were depleted, making it impossible for them to address criminal matters or other important civil disputes. The bloated litigation impeded the prompt compensation of victims and frustrated innocent families. Additionally, it caused businesses to invest excessive money on defense.

Asbestos claims are filed by those diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases after exposure to asbestos in their work environment. The majority of cases are filed by construction workers, shipyard employees, and other tradesmen who worked on buildings that were or were made with asbestos-containing materials. They were exposed to asbestos fibers that could be harmful during the process of manufacturing or when working on the actual structure.

Asbestos litigation was the first mass tort. From the late 1970s until early 1980s, asbestos exposure led to an influx of personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits. This occurred in both state and federal court across the country.

The plaintiffs in these lawsuits claim that their ailments resulted from negligence of asbestos-related products' manufacture and that companies did not 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 a "terrible overloaded 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 as well as pretrial and discovery purposes. Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman handled these cases, which were referred to as the Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation, under the supervision of the Special Master.

A number of defendants were involved in other asbestos-related claims. The defendants were Garlock, Inc, H & A Construction Company, both individually and as successors to Spraycraft Corporation, CRH, Inc. and successors to E.I. Dupont; W.R. Grace and Company; Empire-Ace Insulation Manufacturing Company; Bell/Atlas Asbestos Corp.; and DNS Metal Industries, Inc.