New York Asbestos Litigation

In New York, mesothelioma and lung cancer patients can seek compensation through a dedicated mesothelioma lawyer. Asbestos exposure is a common cause of these kinds of diseases; symptoms can take years before they manifest.

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

Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

Asbestos litigation is distinct from the typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases include multiple defendants (companies being sued), multiple law offices representing plaintiffs, as well as multiple expert witnesses. These cases are often based on specific job locations since asbestos was used to make a variety products and many workers were exposed to asbestos while at work. Asbestos-related victims are often diagnosed with serious diseases like mesothelioma and lung cancer.

New York has a unique approach to asbestos litigation. It is one of the largest dockets across the nation. It is governed by a unique Case Management Order. This CMO was designed to handle huge numbers of asbestos cases involving many defendants. The judges on the NYCAL docket have experience in asbestos cases. The docket is also the scene of some of the highest plaintiff verdicts in the past.

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 base when former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted on federal corruption charges. Silver was accused of killing every reasonably designed tort reform bill in the legislature for more than 20 years while moonlighting for the plaintiffs firm Weitz & Luxenberg.

Justice Sherry Klein Heitler, the long-time manager of the NYCAL docket, resigned in April 2014 amidst 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 instituted a new rule for the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to submit proof that their products were not responsible for mesothelioma of plaintiffs. He also instituted a new policy in which he would not dismiss cases until the expert witness testimony had been completed. This new policy will significantly affect the speed of discovery in cases on the NYCAL docket and could result in better outcomes for defendants.

A federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed MDL 875 recently and ordered that all future asbestos litigation meaning cases be transferred to a different District. This will hopefully result in more consistent and efficient handling of these cases as the current MDL has developed a reputation for discovery abuse as well as unjustified sanctions and minimal evidentiary requirements.

Central New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

After years of mismanagement and corruption by former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the scandals regarding his connections to asbestos lawyers have brought attention to the asbestos docket, which is rigged. Justice Peter Moulton, who now preside over NYCAL has already hosted a Town Hall meeting with defense lawyers to discuss complaints regarding the "rigged" system which favors an asbestos law firm that is powerful.

Asbestos litigation differs from a typical personal injury lawsuit, as it involves many of the same plaintiffs and defendants. Asbestos lawsuits also usually involve similar workplaces where a lot of people were exposed to asbestos, Asbestoslitigationgroup frequently leading to mesothelioma, lung cancer or other diseases. These cases can result in huge verdicts that can clog the court dockets.

To address the problem, several states have adopted laws to limit these types of claims. They typically deal with medical requirements 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. Certain courts have created special "asbestos Dockets" to help reduce the number of asbestos lawsuits and accelerate the resolution of these cases. These dockets are governed by a variety of rules specifically designed for asbestos cases. The New York City asbestos court is one example. It requires applicants to meet certain medical standards as well as has two-disease rules. It also employs an accelerated scheduling.

Certain states have also passed laws that limit the amount of punitive damages awarded in asbestos cases. These laws are intended to discourage bad conduct and provide more compensation to the victims. Regardless of whether your case is filed in federal or state court, you should work with a New York mesothelioma lawyer to learn more about the laws that affect your particular situation.

Alfred Sargente concentrates his practice in environmental and toxic tort litigation including product liability, commercial and toxic tort litigation. He also handles 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 also regularly defends cases that claim exposure to other hazardous substances and contaminants like noise, mold, vibration and environmental contaminants.

Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

Many people have died from asbestos exposure in New York. Across five counties, mesothelioma sufferers and their loved ones have filed lawsuits against companies of asbestos-based products for compensation. Successful mesothelioma lawsuits hold negligent asbestos companies accountable for their rash choices to prioritize profits over public safety.

New York mesothelioma lawyers are skilled in representing clients from different backgrounds against the nation's largest asbestos manufacturers. Their legal strategies could result in an impressive settlement or verdict.

Asbestos litigation has a long history in New York, and continues to make headlines. According to the 2022 report on mesothelioma claims filed by KCIC, New York is the third most sought-after jurisdiction in which to file a mesothelioma suit after California and asbestoslitigationgroup Pennsylvania.

The state's judiciary has been impacted by the flood 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 manager following the revelations 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 able to obtain summary judgment unless they can present a "scientifically sound credible, admissible and reliable scientific study" that proves the exposure of a plaintiff was too low to cause mesothelioma. This effectively eliminates the possibility that NYCAL defendants will be able to secure summary judgment.

Justice Moulton also ruled that plaintiffs must prove injury to their health as a result of asbestos exposure before the court to award compensatory damage. This ruling, when combined with a decision made in the beginning of 2016 that holds that medical monitoring what is asbestos litigation not a tort claim, makes it virtually impossible for an asbestos defense lawyer to prevail on a NYCAL summary judgment motion.

In the most recent case, which Judge Toal was the judge in mesothelioma-related lawsuits brought 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 funds for a fundraiser. The lawsuit asserts that DOVER GREENS did not follow CAA and NESHAP requirements for asbestos by failing to conduct an inspection of the Campus; inform EPA before starting renovation activities and properly remove, store and dispose of asbestos; and have a trained representative on site during renovations.

Eastern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

Asbestos-related personal death and injury cases were a major source of delays in federal court dockets and judges' resources were drained, making it difficult for them from addressing criminal matters or other important civil disputes. The bloated litigation impeded the timely settlement of victims as well as frustrated innocent families. It also led to companies to spend a lot of money on defense.

Asbestos claims are filed by individuals diagnosed with mesothelioma and other asbestos defense litigation-related illnesses after exposure to asbestos in a work environment. The majority of cases are filed by shipyard workers, construction workers employees as well as other tradesmen working on buildings that contained or were constructed with asbestos-containing materials. These individuals were exposed to dangerous asbestos fibers in the manufacturing process or when working on the structure itself.

The first significant mass tort was asbestos litigation. In the late 1970s and Asbestoslitigationgroup early 1980s there was a flurry of personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits stemming from asbestos exposure engulfed the courts. This occurred in federal and state courts across the nation.

These lawsuits are filed by plaintiffs who claim their ailments were the result of negligent manufacturing of asbestos products. They claim that the companies did not to warn them about the dangers of asbestos exposure. More than half of asbestos lawsuits are filed in federal courts.

In the early 1990s, after recognizing that the litigation was a "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, which were referred to as the Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation, under the supervision of a Special Master.

While the majority of these cases were relating to the Brooklyn Navy Yard, many of the defendants were defendants in other asbestos cases. The defendants were Garlock, Inc, H & A Construction Company, as successors and individually to Spraycraft Corporation, CRH, Inc., successors to E.I. Dupont; W.R. Grace and Company; Empire-Ace Insulation Manufacturing Company Bell/Atlas Asbestos Corp.; and DNS Metal Industries, Inc.