New York Asbestos Litigation

Mesothelioma victims in New York can receive compensation from a mesothelioma lawyer. The exposure to asbestos is often the cause of these kinds of illnesses. symptoms may develop for years before they appear.

Judges who oversee the caseload of NYCAL have crafted a pattern that favors plaintiffs. Recent rulings could further undermine 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 which are being accused of being sued) as well as multiple law firms representing plaintiffs, and multiple expert witnesses. These cases usually are focused on specific work sites because asbestos was used to create various products, and a large number of workers were subjected to it at work. Asbestos sufferers are usually diagnosed with serious illnesses 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 governed under a special Case Management Order. This CMO was designed to handle large numbers of asbestos cases that involve numerous defendants. The judges who are part of the NYCAL docket are experienced in asbestos cases. The docket has also witnessed some of the highest settlements for plaintiffs in recent years.

New York Court of Appeals made significant changes to the NYCAL docket in the last few days. 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. Silver was accused of destroying every reasonable designed tort reform bill in the legislature for more than 20 years while moonlighting for the plaintiffs' firm Weitz & Luxenberg.

Justice Sherry Klein Heitler retired in April 2014 following 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 implemented an amendment to the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to present evidence that their products aren't responsible for the plaintiffs' mesothelioma. Additionally, he introduced the new policy that he would not dismiss cases until all expert witness testimony was completed. This new policy will dramatically alter the speed of discovery in cases on the NYCAL docket and could result in more favorable outcomes for defendants.

In other New York asbestos news, an federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia recently dismissed MDL 875 and ordered all future asbestos cases to be transferred to a different district. This should bring about more consistent and efficient handling of these cases as the MDL currently MDL has developed reputation for abuse of discovery, unwarranted sanctions and low evidentiary requirements.

Central New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

After years of corruption and mismanagement by the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the scandals surrounding his ties to asbestos lawyers have focused attention on 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 a 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) 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 or lung cancer, as well as other illnesses. This can lead large verdicts that can clog the courts.

To address this issue, several states have passed laws to limit the type of claims that can be filed. These laws typically address medical criteria two disease rules, expedited scheduling, joinders and forum shopping, punitive damage and successor liability.

Despite these laws states are still seeing high numbers of asbestos lawsuits. Some courts have created "asbestos Dockets" to reduce the number of asbestos cases and speed up the resolution of these cases. These dockets apply different rules that are specifically designed for asbestos cases. The New York City asbestos docket, for example is one that requires applicants to meet specific medical criteria and has a two-disease rule and uses an accelerated trial plan.

Certain states have also enacted laws that restrict the amount of punitive damages awarded in asbestos cases. These laws are intended to discourage particularly bad behavior and provide greater compensation to victims. Whatever the case is filed in a state or federal court, you should consult with a New York mesothelioma lawyer to understand how these laws affect your specific situation.

Alfred Sargente focuses his practice on environmental and toxic tort litigation including commercial litigation, product liability and general liability issues. He has a wealth of experience in 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 claims alleging exposure to numerous other hazardous substances and contaminants such as solvents and chemical as well as vibration, noise, mold and environmental contaminants.

Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

New York has seen thousands of deaths resulting from 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. Successful mesothelioma lawsuits make asbestos companies accountable for their rash decisions to place profits over public safety.

New York mesothelioma attorneys have expertise in representing clients from all backgrounds against the largest asbestos manufacturers in the country. Their legal strategies may result in a generous settlement or trial verdict.

Asbestos litigation has a long history in New York, and asbestoslitigationgroup continues to make headlines. According to the 2022 national report on mesothelioma claim submissions by KCIC, New York is the third most popular jurisdiction for filing mesothelioma lawsuits, following California and Pennsylvania.

The state's judiciary has been buffeted by the influx of asbestos lawsuits. Sheldon Silver, the former Assembly Speaker, was convicted in 2015 on federal corruption charges relating 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 was in charge of NYCAL since 2008.

Justice Peter Moulton succeeded Justice Heitler as NYCAL judge. He has declared that defendants will not be able to obtain summary judgment without the existence of a "scientifically valid and legally admissible research" proving the measured amount of exposure a plaintiff received was not enough to cause a mesothelioma. This eliminates the likelihood that NYCAL defendants are able to get summary judgment.

Additionally, Justice Moulton has ruled that a plaintiff must prove an injury to their health from exposure to asbestos in order for a court to make a decision on compensatory damages. This ruling, combined with a decision made in early 2016 that ruled that medical monitoring is not a tort, makes it nearly impossible for an asbestos defense lawyer to prevail on a NYCAL Summary Judgment motion.

The most recent case, in which Judge Toal is in charge of, a mesothelioma case filed against DOVER GREENS claims that the company was in violation of asbestos work practices regulations when it renovated buildings on the Manhattan campus in October 2013 to host an event for fundraising. The lawsuit claims that DOVER GREENS didn't follow CAA and asbestos NESHAP regulations, failing to notify and inspect the EPA prior to commencing renovations, or to properly remove, store and asbestoslitigationgroup dispose of asbestos, and having a trained representative present at renovation activities.

Eastern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

Asbestos-related personal death and injury cases clogged federal court dockets, and judges' judicial resources were drained, making it difficult for them from addressing criminal cases or other important civil disputes. The overflowing litigation prevented prompt compensation of deserving victims, frustrated innocent families, and caused companies to devote inordinate amounts of money and resources in defense of these cases.

Asbestos claims are filed by people diagnosed with mesothelioma, or other asbestos-related illnesses after being exposed to asbestos in the workplace. Most asbestos claims are filed by construction employees, shipyard workers, and other tradesmen who worked on buildings made or that contain asbestos-containing materials. They were exposed to asbestos fibers that could be harmful during the manufacturing process or while working on the structure.

The first significant mass tort was asbestos litigation. In the late 1970s to the early 1980s, asbestos exposure triggered an influx of personal injury and wrongful deaths lawsuits. This was the case in state and federal courts across the nation.

Plaintiffs in these lawsuits argue that their illnesses resulted from negligence in the production of asbestos products and that companies failed to warn them of the dangers of asbestos exposure. More than half of asbestos lawsuits are brought in federal courts.

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

Many defendants had been involved in asbestos claims in the past. The defendants list included Garlock, Inc; H & A Construction Company, as a successor and individually 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.