CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Joint Eastern & Southern Districts Asbestos Litigation

This amended memorandum and order by District Judge Weinstein addresses motions to dismiss and to vacate consolidation in approximately 700 asbestos cases originating from both the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. The court affirmed its subject matter jurisdiction over third-party contribution claims, applying 'ancillary' or 'supplemental' jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. It also upheld the consolidation of cases, ruling that cases pending in the Southern District should be transferred to the Eastern District under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for efficiency and justice, effective nunc pro tunc. Finally, the decision emphasized the necessity of proper service of process for all parties, particularly regarding their due process right to participate in jury selection, especially in multi-phase trials.

Asbestos litigationMultidistrict litigationSupplemental jurisdictionAncillary jurisdictionCase consolidationVenue transferDue processService of processFederal Civil ProcedureThird-party practice
References
16
Case No. 87 Civ. 8085, 88 Civ. 4214, 90 Civ. 3473, 92 Civ. 3900, 92 Civ. 3901
Regular Panel Decision

In re Asbestos Litigation

Plaintiffs in five separate asbestos tort actions moved to consolidate their claims for trial, citing common questions of law and fact under Rule 42(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. The cases involve deceased individuals who allegedly contracted mesothelioma and/or lung cancer from asbestos exposure. District Judge Sweet considered the established eight-factor test, including common worksites, similar occupations, overlapping exposure periods (1940-1986), the nature of the diseases, and common counsel. The court found substantial similarities among the cases, concluding that consolidation would achieve significant economy by eliminating repetitive testimony and facilitating a fairer comparison of worksites. Consequently, the motion to consolidate the five actions was granted.

Asbestos LitigationMass Toxic TortsConsolidation of ActionsFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a)MesotheliomaLung CancerCommon WorksiteSimilar OccupationTime of ExposureDeceased Plaintiffs
References
10
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04437 [186 AD3d 401]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2020

Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp.

This case, part of the New York City Asbestos Litigation, involved claims from William E. Robaey and Marlena Robaey against Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, among others, for peritoneal mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure from gaskets. A jury awarded significant damages for pain and suffering and loss of consortium. On appeal, Federal-Mogul challenged the sufficiency of evidence for specific causation and the weight of the evidence. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the finding of specific causation, distinguishing the facts from prior rulings, particularly Juni. However, the court found the damages for past pain and suffering and past loss of consortium materially deviated from reasonable compensation and ordered a new trial on those damages unless the plaintiff agreed to a stipulated reduction.

Asbestos LitigationMesotheliomaToxic TortSpecific CausationExpert TestimonyDamages RemittiturPain and SufferingLoss of ConsortiumAppellate ReviewJury Verdict
References
16
Case No. 87 Civ. 4277 (TPG), 87 Civ. 4572 (RWS), 87 Civ. 4279 (RWS), 87 Civ. 4307 (LBS), 87 Civ. 4457 (LLS)
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 1989

Drago v. Celotex Corp.

This case addresses defendant Celotex Corporation's motion to sever four of five consolidated asbestos-related cases for trial in the Southern District of New York. The five plaintiffs, Rudolph Perich, Gerald Drago, James Oefelein, Conrad Kessler, and Harold Paskett, claim personal injuries or wrongful death due to asbestos exposure from Celotex products. The court, presided over by Judge Sweet, denied the motion, upholding the consolidation under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The decision weighed the efficiency of consolidation against potential prejudice, finding common issues of law and fact despite variations in plaintiffs' work sites and medical conditions. The court highlighted the shared counsel and the relatively small number of consolidated claims as factors favoring joint trial.

Asbestos LitigationCivil ProcedureRule 42(a) FRCPConsolidation of ActionsSeverance of ActionsPersonal InjuryWrongful DeathProduct LiabilityFederal District CourtAsbestosis
References
20
Case No. 90 Civ. 8473, 92 Civ. 3900, 92 Civ. 3901
Regular Panel Decision

Asbestos Litigation

Defendant Raymark Industries, Inc. moved to dismiss, stay, or transfer four of six consolidated asbestos actions. The plaintiffs in these actions (Greff, Moore, McPadden, Strafford, Ciletti, Conway) alleged exposure to asbestos causing diseases like mesothelioma and lung cancer. Raymark based its motion on claims of insufficient service of process, ineffective amendment of complaints to include Raymark as a defendant, and the applicability of abstention doctrine due to parallel state court proceedings for Ciletti and Strafford. The court denied all aspects of Raymark's motion. It found that the plaintiffs had complied with service requirements under New York Business Corporation Law § 307 and that the amendment adding Raymark as a defendant was authorized by a standing Case Management Order for asbestos litigation, overriding the need for specific court leave. Furthermore, the court determined that the conditions for federal abstention under the Colorado River doctrine were not met, upholding the federal court's obligation to exercise its jurisdiction. The court also clarified that Raymark was indeed joined to the Greff and Moore actions through a prior consolidation order, despite Raymark's bankruptcy stay arguments.

Asbestos LitigationMultidistrict LitigationMotion to DismissService of ProcessAmended ComplaintFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)Abstention DoctrineColorado River AbstentionParallel State and Federal ProceedingsJurisdiction
References
20
Case No. 2018 NYSlipOp 08059
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 27, 2018

Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. v. A.O Smith Water Prods. Co.

This case involves an appeal in the New York City Asbestos Litigation where Mary Juni, as administratrix of Arthur H. Juni, Jr.'s estate, sued Ford Motor Company. Mr. Juni, who died of mesothelioma, was an auto mechanic exposed to asbestos from Ford vehicles. The core issue was whether the evidence sufficiently established that Ford's conduct was a proximate cause of Mr. Juni's injuries, particularly concerning the toxicity of asbestos in friction products after being subjected to high temperatures during manufacturing and use. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, finding the evidence insufficient to establish proximate causation under existing legal standards, specifically a missing link in the proof regarding the toxicity of the altered asbestos. Concurring opinions further elaborated on the failure to establish a connection between Ford's products and the decedent's exposure or the general causation related to altered chrysotile asbestos. A dissenting opinion argued that the jury's verdict, finding Ford 49% liable, was supported by sufficient evidence and not 'utterly irrational,' highlighting the evidence of Mr. Juni's exposure to asbestos-laden dust from Ford vehicle parts and Ford's internal recognition of asbestos dangers.

Asbestos LitigationMesotheliomaProximate CauseProduct LiabilityToxicologyFriction ProductsChrysotile AsbestosExpert TestimonyJury VerdictAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 06557 [143 AD3d 483]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2016

Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation

This case, Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation, involves an appeal by Crane Co. against a jury verdict awarding damages to Laraine Sweberg, as executrix of Ivan Sweberg, for mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the jury's finding that Crane Co. was liable for failing to warn about asbestos hazards, as it promoted asbestos-containing materials alongside its products despite knowing the dangers since the 1930s. The court found sufficient evidence to support proximate causation and the submission of recklessness to the jury. However, the court modified the judgment regarding the award for future pain and suffering, conditionally vacating it and ordering a new trial unless the plaintiff stipulates to a reduced award of $4.5 million.

Asbestos LitigationMesotheliomaFailure to WarnProximate CauseJury VerdictDamages RemittiturFuture Pain and SufferingAppellate ReviewProduct LiabilityAsbestos Exposure
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 1945

Empire Case Goods Workers Union v. Empire Case Goods Co.

Empire Case Goods Workers Union, on behalf of its members, brought an action against Empire Case Goods Company and Sidney G. Bose to recover vacation pay stipulated in a contract. Empire sold its business to Bose, leading both defendants to deny liability for the vacation pay. The Special Term initially dismissed the complaint against both defendants, reasoning that Empire's employees became Bose's and Bose was not party to the contract. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal against Bose, finding no implied assumption of Empire's wage structure. However, it reversed the dismissal against Empire, holding Empire liable for the vacation pay as employees were not notified of the change in employer and continued to work under Empire's apparent authority, making Empire responsible under master and servant law.

Vacation PayEmployer LiabilitySuccessor LiabilityEmployment ContractSale of BusinessNotice of TerminationAgency RelationshipMaster and Servant LawAppellate ReviewWage Dispute
References
2
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04872 [208 AD3d 1046]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2022

Perri v. Case

Plaintiff Michael Perri sued defendant Mark Case, doing business as Case's Mini Storage, alleging breach of contract and seeking specific performance related to a right of first refusal for leased property. The Supreme Court, Ontario County, granted Perri's motion for summary judgment. Case appealed this order and judgment (Appeal No. 1), also appealing the denial of a motion to reargue/renew (Appeal No. 2), and an order holding him in civil contempt (Appeal No. 3). The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's order and judgment in Appeal No. 1. Appeal No. 2, which sought reargument, was dismissed as non-appealable. In Appeal No. 3, the Cook defendants' appeal was dismissed, and Case's appeal challenging the civil contempt finding was rejected, thereby upholding the contempt order.

Breach of ContractRight of First RefusalSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentSpecific PerformanceCivil ContemptAppellate ReviewReal PropertyLease AgreementWaiver
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2016

The Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation , Doris Kay Dummitt v. A.W. Chesterton , The Matter of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation , Joann H. Suttner v. A.W. Chesterton Company

This New York Court of Appeals opinion addresses the scope of a manufacturer's duty to warn regarding dangers arising from the use of its product in combination with a third-party product. The Court held that such a duty exists when the third-party product is necessary for the manufacturer's product to function as intended, whether due to design, mechanics, or economic necessity, and the danger is known and foreseeable. Applying this rule, the Court affirmed judgments against Crane Co. in two separate asbestos litigations, finding that Crane had a duty to warn users of its valves about asbestos exposure from third-party sealing components. The decision clarified the balance of risks and costs in products liability law.

Product LiabilityFailure to WarnAsbestos ExposureMesotheliomaManufacturer DutyCombined Product UseForeseeability of HarmEconomic NecessityComponent Parts DoctrineStrict Liability
References
91
Showing 1-10 of 16,748 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational