### Tippin v 3M Co. 2024 NY Slip Op 31150(U) April 3, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 190062/2021 Judge: Adam Silvera Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip

Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New

York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1332 INDEX NO. 190062/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024 

### SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. ADAM SILVERA Justice -------X COREY G. TIPPIN, Plaintiff,

- V - 3M COMPANY, ALCAT, INCORPORATED, AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, AVON PRODUCTS, INC.,BOURJOIS, LTD, BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA, INC, BRENNTAG SPECIALTIES, LLC,BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, CHANEL, INC.,CHATTEM, INC.,COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY, COTY INC.,GLAMOUR INDUSTRIES CO., JOHNSON & JOHNSON, JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.,KERR CORPORATION, KRYOLAN CORPORATION, L'OREAL USA, INC.,MAX FACTOR CO., INC.,MAYBELLINE, INC.,PFIZER INC.,R.T. VANDERBILT HOLDING COMPANY, INC.,REVLON, INC.,THE NESLEMUR COMPANY, UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, VANDERBILT MINERALS, LLC,WHITTAKER CLARK & DANIELS, INC.,YVES SAINT LAURENT AMERICA, INC.,BLOCK DRUG COMPANY, INC. IND. AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTERESTTO THE GOLD BOND STERILIZING POWDER COMPANY, A/KIA THE GOLD BOND COMPANY, BLOCK DRUG CORPORATION IND. AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTERESTTO THE GOLD BOND STERILIZING POWDER COMPANY, A/KIA THE GOLD BOND COMPANY, JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO JOHNSON & JOHNSON SUBSIDIARIES NAMED JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.,JOHNSON & JOHNSON HOLDCO (NA) INC.,F/KIA JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.,KENVUE INC.,INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-ININTEREST TO JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.,LTL MANAGEMENT LLC Defendant. -------------------·--------------------X PART
INDEX NO. 190062/2021 MOTION DATE 01/23/2024 MOTION SEQ. NO. 019

DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION 13

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 019) 1092, 1093, 1094, 1095, 1096, 1097, 1098, 1099, 1100, 1101, 1102, 1103, 1104, 1105, 1106, 1107, 1108, 1109, 1110, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1115, 1116, 1117, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121, 1122, 1123, 1124, 1125, 1126, 1127, 1186, 1187, 1188, 1189, 1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1194, 1195, 1196, 1197, 1198, 1199, 1200, 1201, 1202, 1203, 1204, 1205, 1206, 1207, 1208, 1209, 1210, 1211, 1212, 1213, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1217, 1218, 1219, 1220, 1221, 1222, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1230, 1231, 1232, 1233, 1234, 1235, 1236, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242, 1243, 1244, 1245, 1246, 1247, 1248,
190062/2021 TIPPIN, COREY G. vs. 3M COMPANY Motion No. 019 1 of 4 Page 1 of4 

### [* 1]NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1332 INDEX NO. 190062/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024

1249, 1250, 1251, 1252, 1253, 1254, 1255, 1256, 1257, 1258, 1259, 1260, 1261, 1262, 1263, 1264, 1265, 1266, 1267, 1268, 1269, 1270, 1271, 1272, 1273, 1274, 1275, 1276, 1277, 1278, 1279, 1280, 1281, 1282, 1283, 1284, 1285, 1286, 1287, 1288, 1289, 1290, 1291, 1292, 1293, 1294, 1295, 1296, 1297, 1298, 1299, 1300, 1301, 1302, 1303, 1304, 1305, 1306, 1307, 1308, 1309, 1310, 1311, 1312, 1313, 1314, 1315, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1319, 1320, 1321, 1322, 1323, 1324 were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT - SUMMARY 

### Uponthe foregoing documents, it is orderedthat the instant motion for summary judgmentpursuantto CPLR 3212 is denied in accordance withthe decisionbelow. Here, defendants Johnson & Johnson ("J&J"), Johnson & Johnson ConsumerInc. ("JJCI"), and LTL Management LLC ("LTL") make a motion for summaryjudgment seeking to dismiss all claims against it onthe basis that plaintiffCorey Tippin ("Mr. Tippin") has not established causationpursuant to Nemeth v Brenntag N. 

### Am., 38 NY3d 336, 342-43 (2022). Moving defendants proffer expert testimony disputing plaintiffstheories ofcausation regarding cosmetic talc. See Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson ConsumerInc., and LTL Management LLC's Memorandum ofLaw In Support ofSummary Judgment, p. 9. In opposition, plaintiffoffers multiple contradicting expert opinions regarding general causation as well as specific talc simulation studies with "estimates orranges ofthe amount of asbestos inhaled during the application oftalcum powder." See Plaintiffs Memorandum ofLaw In Oppositionto Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson ConsumerInc. and LTL Management, LLC's Motions for Summary Judgment, p. 42-43. The Courtnotes that summaryjudgment is a drastic remedy and should only be granted if the moving party has sufficiently established that it is warranted as a matter oflaw. See Alvarez v ProspectHosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 (1986). "The proponent ofa summaryjudgmentmotion must make a prima facie showing ofentitlementtojudgment as a matter oflaw, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues offact from the case". WinegradvNew York

190062/2021 TIPPIN, COREY G. vs. 3M COMPANY Motion No. 019
2 of 4 Page 2 of4 

### [* 2]NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1332 INDEX NO. 190062/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024


### University Medical Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853 (1985). Despite the sufficiency ofthe opposing papers, the failure to make such a showing requires denial ofthe motion. 

### See id. at 853. Additionally, summaryjudgmentmotions should be denied ifthe opposing party presents admissible evidence establishing that there is a genuine issue offact remaining. 

### See Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557,560 (1980). "Indetermining whether summaryjudgmentis appropriate, the motion court should draw all reasonable inferences in favor ofthe nonmoving party and should notpass on issues ofcredibility." 

### Garcia vJC. Duggan, Inc., 180 AD2d 579, 580 (1 st 

### Dep't 1992), citing 

### Dauman Displays, Inc. vMasturzo, 168 AD2d 204 (1 st 

### Dep't 1990). The court'srole is "issue-finding, rather than issue-determination". 

### Sillman v Twentieth CenturyFox Film Corp., 3NY2d 395, 404 (1957) (internal quotations omitted). As such, summary judgmentis rarely granted in negligence actions unless there is no conflict at all in the evidence. 

### See Ugarriza v Schmieder, 46 NY2d471, 475-476 (1979). Furthermore, the Appellate Division, First Departmenthas held that on a motion for summaryjudgment, it is moving defendant's burden "to unequivocally establishthat its product could not have contributedto the causation of plaintiff's injury". 

### Reidv Georgia-Pacific Corp., 212 AD2d 462, 463 (1 st 

### Dep't 1995). The appropriate standard at summaryjudgmentfor moving defendants J&J, JJCI, and LTL canbe found in

### Dyer vAmchemProducts Inc., 207 AD3d 408, 409 (1st Dep't 2022). In 

### Dyer, defendants were granted summaryjudgment notby "simply argu[ing] that plaintiffcould not affirmatively prove causation" but by "affirmatively prov[ing], as a matter oflaw, that there
was no causation." 

### Id. The Appellate Division, First Department, recently affirmed this Court's decision in 

### Sason v Dykes Lumber Co., Inc., et. al., 2023 NY Slip Op 05796 (1st Dep't 2023), stating that "the parties' competing causation evidence constituted the classic 'battle ofthe experts"' sufficientto raise a question offact, and to preclude summaryjudgment.

190062/2021 TIPPIN, COREY G. vs. 3M COMPANY Motion No. 019 3 of 4 Page 3 of 4 

### [* 3]NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1332 INDEX NO. 190062/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024

Here, moving defendants failed to meettheirburden on a motionfor summaryjudgment by affirmatively establishing that cosmetic talc from its products could not have caused Mr. Tippin's illness. Rather, moving defendants pointto gaps inplaintiffsproof. Moreover, plaintiff has offered conflicting evidence. As such, plaintiffhas raised sufficient issues offact topreclude summaryjudgmentand moving defendants have not mettheirburden as set forth by the Appellate Division inReidandDyer, supra. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that defendants J&J, JJCI, and LTL's motion for summaryjudgmentis denied inits entirety; and it is further ORDERED that within 30 days ofentry plaintiffshall serve all parties with a copy ofthis Decision/Orderwithnotice ofentry. This constitutes the Decision/Order ofthe Court.

4/3/2024

DATE CHECK ONE:
APPLICATION: CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: 

# § CASE DISPOSED GRANTED 

# 0 DENIED SETTLE ORDER INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN

190062/2021 TIPPIN, COREY G. vs. 3M COMPANY Motion No. 019
4 of 4 ADAM SILVERA, J.S.C. NON-FINAL DISPOSITION GRANTED IN PART SUBMIT ORDER FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT

### □ OTHER**□** REFERENCE

Page 4 of4 

### [* 4]