New York Asbestos Litigation

Mesothelioma patients in New York can receive compensation from an attorney for mesothelioma. These diseases are usually brought on by exposure to asbestos. The symptoms may not be apparent for many years.

Judges who manage NYCAL's caseload have developed patterns of favoring plaintiffs. A recent ruling could further erode defendants' rights.

Upstate New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

Asbestos litigation is different from a typical personal injury lawsuit. These cases include multiple defendants (companies being sued), multiple law offices representing plaintiffs, and a variety of expert witness. In addition there are often specific job sites which are the focus of these cases since asbestos was utilized in a variety products and workers were exposed to asbestos during their work. Asbestos-related victims are often diagnosed with serious illnesses such as mesothelioma or lung cancer.

New York has a unique approach to asbestos litigation. It is one of the largest dockets in the United States. It is administered by a specific Case Management Order. This CMO was designed to manage asbestos cases with a large number of defendants. The Judges involved in the NYCAL docket are experienced in asbestos cases. The docket also has seen some of the largest plaintiff awards in recent history.

New York Court of Appeals has made major changes to the NYCAL docket last week. In 2015 the political system in Albany was rocked to its core by the conviction of the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver on federal corruption charges. He had been accused of killing every reasonably crafted tort reform bill in the legislature for more than 20 years, while working for the plaintiffs firm Weitz & Luxenberg.

Justice Sherry Klein Heitler, the long-time head of the NYCAL docket, retired in April 2014 amid 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 established an entirely new rule for the NYCAL docket that requires defendants to submit evidence that their products are not responsible for plaintiffs' mesothelioma. Additionally, he introduced an entirely new procedure in which he would not dismiss cases until expert witness testimony was complete. This new policy could have a significant impact 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 lawsuit news, an federal judge from the Eastern District of Virginia recently dismissed MDL 875 and ordered all future asbestos cases to be transferred to another district. This will hopefully lead to more efficient and uniform handling of these cases, since the MDL currently MDL has earned reputation for abuse of discovery, unwarranted sanctions and low evidentiary requirements.

Central New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

After years of corruption by the former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and his mismanagement, the scandals surrounding Sheldon Silver's ties with asbestos lawyers have finally brought attention to the city's asbestos court, which is rigged. 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 a powerful asbestos law firm.

Asbestos litigation is different from the typical personal injury lawsuit. It has many of the same defendants (companies who are sued) as well as plaintiffs (people who file lawsuits). Asbestos litigation also generally involves similar work sites where a large number of people were exposed to asbestos, usually leading to mesothelioma, lung cancer or other diseases. This can result in large verdicts that can block dockets of the courts.

To address the problem In order to tackle the issue, a few states have passed laws that limit these kinds of claims. They typically deal with medical criteria, two disease rules, expedited scheduling, joinders, forum shopping, punitive damages and successor liability.

Despite these laws states are still seeing high numbers of asbestos lawsuits. Certain courts have created special "asbestos Dockets" to reduce the number of asbestos lawsuits and speed up the resolution of these cases. These dockets are governed by various rules specifically designed for asbestos cases. The New York City asbestos court for instance, requires applicants to meet certain medical standards and has rules for two diseases. It also uses an accelerated schedule.

Some states have passed laws that limit the amount of punitive damages awarded in asbestos cases. These laws are intended to stop bad conduct and allow more compensation to be awarded to victims. You should speak with an New York Mesothelioma Lawyer regardless of whether you decide to file your case in state or federal courts to understand the laws applicable to your particular situation.

Alfred Sargente focuses his practice on environmental and toxic tort litigation, product liability, commercial litigation and general liability issues. He has extensive experience in defending clients from claims that claim exposure to asbestos, lead and World Trade Center dust in both New York and New Jersey. He defends clients regularly against claims claiming exposure to many other contaminants and hazards such as chemical and solvents and vibration, noise, mold, and environmental toxics.

Southern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

Thousands of people have died from asbestos exposure in New York. Mesothelioma patients and their families have filed lawsuits in five counties against manufacturers of asbestos products to seek compensation. Successful mesothelioma lawsuits hold negligent asbestos companies accountable for their rash decisions to put profits ahead of public safety.

New York mesothelioma lawyers are experienced in representing clients from diverse backgrounds against the nation's most significant asbestos manufacturers. Their legal strategies could lead to a generous verdict or settlement.

Asbestos litigation in New York has a rich history, and it continues to be the subject of headlines. According to the 2022 report on mesothelioma claims filed by KCIC, New York is the third most popular jurisdiction where you can file mesothelioma lawsuits, following 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 on federal corruption charges in connection with millions of dollars in referral fees he received from politically powerful plaintiffs' law firms Weitz & Luxenberg for handling Asbestos Lawsuit cases. Following the scandal, Justice Sherry Klein Heitler, who had managed 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 stated that defendants will not be able to get summary judgment unless they have the existence of a "scientifically valid and legally admissible research" showing that 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.

In addition, Justice Moulton has ruled that a plaintiff must prove an injury to their health due to exposure to asbestos in order for a court to award compensatory damages. This ruling, combined with a ruling from the beginning of 2016 that ruled that medical monitoring is not a tort claim, makes it nearly impossible for an asbestos defense lawyer to prevail on a NYCAL Summary Judgment motion.

In the latest case, Judge Toal was in charge of mesothelioma-related lawsuits brought against DOVER Green, a company that is accused of violating asbestos attorney work practices regulations when it renovated Manhattan campus buildings in October 2013 to raise funds for a fundraising event. The lawsuit claims that DOVER GREENS failed to follow CAA and asbestos NESHAP regulations, failing to inspect and notify the EPA prior to commencing renovation activities, properly remove, store and dispose of asbestos and appointing a trained representative on site during renovations.

Eastern New York Asbestos Litigation Dockets

At one point asbestos personal injury/death lawsuits clogged federal and state courts and drained judges' resources for judicial work, preventing them from addressing criminal cases or other crucial civil disputes. This bloated litigation impeded the timely compensation of deserving victims, irritated innocent families, and forced companies to devote inordinate amounts of money and resources to defense of these cases.

Asbestos claims are filed by those diagnosed with mesothelioma or other asbestos-related diseases following being exposed to asbestos in their work environment. Most asbestos claims are filed by construction workers shipyard workers, construction workers, and other tradesmen that worked on structures made of or made of asbestos-containing materials. These workers were exposed dangerous asbestos fibers during the process of manufacturing or while working on the actual structure.

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

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

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 and pretrial purposes hundreds of state and federal lawsuits that claimed asbestos attorneys exposure at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Under the supervision of the Special Master, Judge Weinstein and Justice Freedman consolidated these cases, referred to as Brooklyn Navy Yard consolidation.

While the majority of these cases were relating to the Brooklyn Navy Yard, many of the defendants were common defendants in other asbestos cases. The defendants were Garlock, Inc, H & A Construction Company, 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.