New York Asbestos Litigation

Mesothelioma victims in New York can receive compensation from a mesothelioma attorney. The exposure to asbestos is often the cause of these kinds of diseases; symptoms may take decades before they manifest.

Judges who manage the caseload of NYCAL have crafted a pattern that favors plaintiffs. A recent ruling could further weaken defendants' rights.

Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

Asbestos litigation is different than the typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases involve many defendants (companies that are sued), multiple law firms representing plaintiffs as well as numerous expert witnesses. These cases are often focused on specific work sites since asbestos was used to make various products, and a large number of workers were exposed to asbestos during their work. Asbestos victims are often diagnosed with serious illnesses like mesothelioma or lung cancer.

New York has its own unique approach to dealing with asbestos litigation. In fact, it is one of the largest dockets in the country. It is governed by a special Case Management Order. This CMO was designed to handle large numbers of asbestos cases involving numerous defendants. The Judges involved in the NYCAL docket are experienced in asbestos attorneys cases. The docket has also seen some of the highest settlements for plaintiffs in recent years.

The New York Court of Appeals has recently made significant changes to the NYCAL docket. In 2015, the political establishment in Albany was shaken to the base when the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver was convicted on federal corruption charges. He had been accused of sabotaging every decently crafted tort reform bill in the legislature for more than a decade while working for the plaintiffs firm Weitz & Luxenberg.

Justice Sherry Klein Heitler retired in April 2014, citing reports that she had given the Weitz & Luxenberg firm "red carpet treatment". She was replaced by Justice Peter Moulton who implemented a number changes to the docket.

Moulton established a new rule for the NYCAL docket, which requires defendants to submit proof that their products were not responsible for mesothelioma in plaintiffs. He also instituted an updated policy that states that he wouldn't dismiss cases until the expert witness testimony was completed. This new rule will greatly 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 another District. This will hopefully result in more uniform and efficient handling of these cases, because the MDL currently MDL has earned itself a reputation for discovery abuse, unwarranted sanctions and minimal evidentiary requirements.

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 brought attention to New York City's rigged asbestos docket. Justice Peter Moulton is now presided over NYCAL and has already held a town hall meeting with defense attorneys to hear complaints about the "rigged" system that favors one mighty asbestos law firm.

Asbestos lawsuits differ from a typical personal injury lawsuit because it involves a lot of the same plaintiffs and defendants. Asbestos litigation also includes similar job sites where a lot of people were exposed to asbestos, resulting to mesothelioma or lung cancer. These cases can result in huge verdicts that can block court dockets.

To address the problem In order to tackle the issue, a few states have passed laws that limit these kinds of claims. These laws typically deal with issues such as medical requirements, two-disease regulations expedited case scheduling, forum shopping, joinders punitive damages and successor liability.

Despite these laws states are still seeing an influx of asbestos lawsuits. Some courts have created special "asbestos Dockets" to help reduce the number of asbestos lawsuits (Continued) and speed up the resolution of these cases. These dockets apply various rules specifically designed for asbestos cases. The New York City asbestos docket for instance, requires claimants to meet certain medical requirements and also has a rule of two diseases and uses an accelerated trial schedule.

Some states have passed laws that restrict the amount of punitive damage awarded in asbestos cases. These laws are designed to deter particularly bad behavior and allow for greater compensation to the victims. You should consult a New York Mesothelioma Lawyer regardless of whether you file your case in federal or state courts to learn about the laws that apply to your case.

Alfred Sargente focuses his practice on environmental and toxic tort litigation, commercial litigation, product liability and general liability issues. He has extensive experience defending clients from claims that claim exposure to lead, asbestos and World Trade Center dust in both New York and New Jersey. He is also frequently defending cases that claim exposure to other contaminants and hazards like vibration, noise, mold 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 loved ones have filed lawsuits against manufacturers 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 adept at representing clients with diverse backgrounds against the nation's most significant asbestos manufacturers. Their legal strategies may result in a substantial settlement or trial verdict.

Asbestos litigation has a long-standing history in New York, and continues to draw attention. According to the report for 2022 on mesothelioma claim submissions by KCIC, New York is the third most popular jurisdiction for filing a mesothelioma suit after California and Pennsylvania.

The state's judiciary has been hit by the influx of asbestos lawsuits. Sheldon Silver, the former Assembly Speaker, was convicted in 2015 of federal corruption charges in connection with millions of dollars in referral fees that he received from the politically powerful plaintiffs law firms Weitz & Luxenberg for handling asbestos cases. After the scandal, Justice Sherry Klein Heitler who had been the head of NYCAL since 2008, was dismissed amid reports that she gave "red-carpet treatment" to Weitz & Luxenberg asbestos lawsuits.

Justice Peter Moulton succeeded Justice Heitler as NYCAL judge. He has declared that defendants won't be able to get summary judgment unless they have the existence of a "scientifically credible and admissible study" proving the measured dose of exposure that a plaintiff received was not sufficient to cause mesothelioma. This effectively ends the possibility that NYCAL defendants can get summary judgment.

Justice Moulton also ruled that plaintiffs must prove health harm suffered due to asbestos exposure in order for the judge to award compensatory damages. This ruling, along with a decision from early 2016 which ruled that medical monitoring is not a tort, makes it almost impossible for an asbestos defence lawyer to win a NYCAL Summary Motion for Judgment.

The most recent case on which Judge Toal is in charge, a mesothelioma lawsuit filed against DOVER GREENS, alleges that the company was in violation of asbestos work practice regulations when it renovated buildings on the Manhattan campus in October 2013 for a fundraising event. The lawsuit asserts that DOVER GREENS failed to follow CAA and Asbestos NESHAP regulations by failing to inspect and notify the EPA prior to starting renovations, or to properly remove, store and dispose of asbestos, and having a trained representative at renovation activities.

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 drained, preventing them to address criminal matters or important civil disputes. The overflowing litigation prevented prompt compensation of victims and irritated innocent families. It also led to companies to invest excessive money on defense.

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

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

These lawsuits are filed by plaintiffs who claim their illnesses were the result of negligent manufacturing of asbestos attorney products. They also claim that companies failed to warn them about the dangers associated with asbestos exposure. More than half of asbestos lawsuits are brought in federal court.

In the early 1990s, after recognizing the fact that this litigation was "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 state and federal lawsuits that claimed asbestos exposure at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. 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.

Many of the defendants had been 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. as successors 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.