Case Name: FRANK DAFLER AND THERESA DAFLER, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC.; GAF CORPORATION; CELOTEX CORPORATION; H.K. PORTER COMPANY; SOUTHERN TEXTILE CORPORATION; EAGLE-PICHER INDUSTRIES, INC.; OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS COMPANY; GARLOCK, INC., NICOLET, INC., AND JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS ONE THROUGH TEN, DEFENDANTS, AND KEENE CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1993-04-15
Citations: 132 N.J. 96
Docket Number: 
Parties: FRANK DAFLER AND THERESA DAFLER, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC.; GAF CORPORATION; CELOTEX CORPORATION; H.K. PORTER COMPANY; SOUTHERN TEXTILE CORPORATION; EAGLE-PICHER INDUSTRIES, INC.; OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS COMPANY; GARLOCK, INC., NICOLET, INC., AND JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS ONE THROUGH TEN, DEFENDANTS, AND KEENE CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Reports
Volume: 132
Pages: 96–96

Head Matter:
622 A.2d 1305
FRANK DAFLER AND THERESA DAFLER, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. RAYMARK INDUSTRIES, INC.; GAF CORPORATION; CELOTEX CORPORATION; H.K. PORTER COMPANY; SOUTHERN TEXTILE CORPORATION; EAGLE-PICHER INDUSTRIES, INC.; OWENS-ILLINOIS GLASS COMPANY; GARLOCK, INC., NICOLET, INC., AND JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS ONE THROUGH TEN, DEFENDANTS, AND KEENE CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Argued March 29, 1993
Decided April 15, 1993.
Jonathan W. Miller argued the cause for appellants (Greitzer and Locks, attorneys; Mr. Miller, George C. Greatrex, Jr. and James J. Pettit, of counsel).
Gita F. Rothschild argued the cause for respondent (McCarter & English, attorneys; Andrew T. Berry, of counsel; Mr. Berry and John C. Garde, on the brief).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We granted certification, 130 N.J. 601, 617 A.2d 1223 (1992), to review so much of the judgment of the Appellate Division as determined that the trial record contained sufficient evidence to permit the jury to apportion damages between asbestos exposure and cigarette smoking. See Dafler v. Raymark Industries, Inc., 259 N.J.Super. 17, 35-36, 611 A.2d 136 (1992).
We affirm the judgment on the foregoing issue, substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge King's opinion for the Appellate Division.
For affirmance — Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, O'HERN, GARIBALDI and STEIN — 7.