Court Opinion

ID: 9962511
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 20:09:28.672347+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:59.266055
License: Public Domain

Wagner v Aerco Intl., Inc,
               2024 NY Slip Op 31370(U)
                     April 19, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 190169/2021
                  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.
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 190169/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 296                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

                            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                      NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:       HON. ADAM SILVERA                                    PART                              13
                                                                 Justice
           ----·--------------------------X
                                                                                INDEX NO.          190169/2021
             MICHAEL C WAGNER,
                                                                                MOTION DATE        01/02/2024
                                              Plaintiff,
                                                                                MOTION SEQ. NO. _ _ _0_0_3_ _
                                      - V -

             AERCO INTERNATIONAL, INC, AMCHEM PRODUCTS,
             INC.,   N/K/A RHONE POULENC AG COMPANY,         N/K/A
             BAYER CROPSCIENCE INC, AMERICAN BILTRITE INC,
             AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC. (AHM),
             ARVINMERITOR, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
             SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO ROCKWELL
             AUTOMOTIVE, BMCE INC.,        F/K/A UNITED
             CENTRIFUGAL PUMP, BMW OF NORTH AMERICA
             LLC,CARLISLE INDUSTRIAL BRAKE & FRICTION, INC,
             CBS CORPORATION, F/K/A VIACOM INC., SUCCESSOR
             BY MERGER TO       CBS CORPORATION, F/K/A
             WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, DCO LLC
             F/K/A DANA COMPANIES, LLC,DOMCO PRODUCTS
             TEXAS, INC, EATON CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY
             AND AS SUCCESSOR         -IN-INTEREST TO CUTLER-
             HAMMER, INC, ECHLIN INC, FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
             GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, GOODYEAR CANADA,
             INC, GOULDS PUMPS LLC,HALDEX BRAKE PRODUCTS
             CORPORATION        AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO
             GREY ROCK BRAKES, HARSCO CORPORATION, AS                             DECISION+ ORDER ON
             SUCCESSOR TO PATTERSON-KELLEY COMPANY, INC.,                               MOTION
             INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A PATTERSON-KELLEY,
              HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., F/K/A ALLIED
              SIGNAL, INC./ BENDIX, ISUZU MOTORS AMERICA, INC,
              KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC, LEVITON
              MANUFACTURING CO., INC, LIPE-AUTOMATION
              CORPORATION, MANNINGTON MILLS, INC, MERCEDES-
              BENZ USA, LLC,F/K/A MERCEDES-BENZ USA, INC.
             AND MERCEDES-BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA, INC,
              MERCURY MARINE, INC, MORSE TEC LLC,F/K/A BORG
              WARNER MORSE TEC LLC AND SUCCESSOR-BY-
              MERGER TO BORG-WARNER CORPORATION, MR.
              GASKET COMPANY, NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC,
              PFIZER, INC. (PFIZER), PNEUMO ABEX
              LLC,SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO ABEX
              CORPORATION (ABEX), STANDARD MOTOR
              PRODUCTS, INC, SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC, TARKETT
              INC, TENNECO AUTOMOTIVE OPERATING COMPANY
              INC, THE B.F. GOODRICH COMPANY,         (GOODRICH
              CORPORATION), THE GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER
              COMPANY, THE HEIL CO. D/B/A HEIL TRAILER

             190169/2021 WAGNER, MICHAEL C vs. AERCO INTERNATIONAL, INC ET AL                       Page 1 of 6
             Motion No. 003

                                                           1 of 6
[* 1]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 190169/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 296                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

             INTERNATIONAL, TOYOTA MOTOR SALES U.S.A., INC,
             VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, UNION CARBIDE
             CORPORATION, WEIL-MCLAIN, A DIVISION OF THE
             MARLEY-WYLAIN COMPANY, A WHOLLY OWNED
             SUBSIDIARY OF THE MARLEY COMPANY, LLC,

                                              Defendant.
            --------------------------------------X

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 219, 220, 221, 222,
            223,224,225,226,227,228,229,230,231,232,251,273,274,275,276,277,278,279,280,281,282,
            283
            were read on this motion to/for                        SUMMARY JUDGMENT(AFTER JOINDER

                   Upon the foregoing documents, it is ordered that defendant American Biltrite Inc.'s

           instant motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the complaint and all cross-claims

           against it is denied for the reasons set forth below.

                   Here, defendant American Biltrite moves for summary judgment seeking to dismiss this

           action on the grounds that plaintiffs exposure to asbestos from Amtico brand floor tiles during

           the course of his employment doing floor work from 1963 to the end of August 1966 was of

            insufficient quantity to have caused plaintifrs illness. Defendant American Biltrite contends that

           this action must be dismissed as plaintiff is unable to establish specific or general causation. In

            support, moving defendant proffers, inter alia, the 2007 expert report and study of John W.

            Spencer, an industrial hygienist, finding that exposure to asbestos from Amtico floor tiles, when

            snapped and scored, would not have exposed plaintiff to higher than normal levels of asbestos.

                    In opposition, plaintiff highlights plaintiff Michael Wagner's extensive exposure to

            asbestos from Amtico floor tiles as an apprentice installer during the 1960s when he sanded,

            snapped, and scored such floor tiles. Further, plaintiff offers conflicting expert opinions

            regarding plaintiff's exposure to Amtico floor tiles and its causal connection to his

             190169/2021 WAGNER, MICHAEL C vs. AERCO INTERNATIONAL, INC ET AL                       Page 2 of 6
             Motion No. 003

                                                           2 of 6
[* 2]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 190169/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 296                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

           mesothelioma. Plaintiff additionally notes that moving defendant has failed to meet its initial

           burden. Moving defendant replies.

                   The Court notes that summary judgment is a drastic remedy and should only be granted if

           the moving party has sufficiently established that it is warranted as a matter of law. See Alvarez v

           Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 (1986). "The proponent of a summary judgment motion must

           make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient

           evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case". Winegrad v New York

           University Medical Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853 (1985). Despite the sufficiency of the opposing

           papers, the failure to make such a showing requires denial of the motion. See id. at 853.

                   Additionally, summary judgment motions should be denied if the opposing party presents

           admissible evidence establishing that there is a genuine issue of fact remaining. See Zuckerman v

           City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 560 (1980). "In determining whether summary judgment is

           appropriate, the motion court should draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving

           party and should not pass on issues of credibility." Garcia v JC Duggan, Inc., 180 AD2d 579,

           580 (1 st Dep't 1992), citing Dauman Displays, Inc. v Masturzo, 168 AD2d 204 (1 st Dep't 1990).

           The court's role is "issue-finding, rather than issue-determination". Sillman v Twentieth Century-

           Fox Film Corp., 3 NY2d 395,404 (1957) (internal quotations omitted). As such, summary

           judgment is rarely granted in negligence actions unless there is no conflict at all in the evidence.

           See Ugarriza v Schmieder, 46 NY2d 471, 475-476 (1979). Furthermore, the Appellate Division,

            First Department, has held that on a motion for summary judgment, it is moving defendant's

            burden "to unequivocally establish that its product could not have contributed to the causation of

            plaintiffs injury". Reid v Georgia-Pacific Corp., 212 AD2d 462, 463 (1 st Dep't 1995).

             190169/2021 WAGNER, MICHAEL C vs. AERCO INTERNATIONAL, INC ET AL                     Page 3 of 6
             Motion No. 003

                                                          3 of 6
[* 3]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 190169/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 296                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

                   The appropriate standard at summary judgment for moving defendant American Biltrite

           can be found in Dyer v Amchem Products Inc., 207 AD3d 408,409 (1st Dep't 2022). In Dyer,

           defendants were granted summary judgment not by "simply argu[ing] that plaintiff could not

           affirmatively prove causation" but by "affirmatively prov[ing], as a matter of law, 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 of the

           experts"' sufficient to raise a question of fact, and to preclude summary judgment.

                   In this motion, defendant American Biltrite argues that the 2007 expert report of John W.

           Spencer sufficiently establishes that plaintiff was not exposed to levels of respirable asbestos

           which exceeded ambient levels. According to moving defendant, the Appellate Division, First

           Department, reviewed and considered this exact report in Dyer, supra, finding that in the 2007

           Environmental Profiles, Inc. study, "a worker and a helper. .. cut, scored/snapped Amtico tiles in

           an isolation test chamber, simulating an eight-hour 'shift'. Air sample cassettes were attached to

           the worker and the helper in each of their breathing zones. The fibers collected at the conclusion

           of the eight-hour study were reportedly less than 0.00044 flee (fiber per cubic centimeter). Based

           upon the results of the 2007 EPI study ... [American Biltrite's] experts concluded that the

           decedent's time weighted average exposure to chrysotile asbestos was below the OSHA eight-

            hour permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.1 flee, and also indistinguishable from 0.00000033

            flee the lifetime cumulative exposure that the general public is exposed to in the ambient air that

            we all breathe." Dyer v Amchem Products, Inc., 207 AD3d 408, 411 (1 st Dep't 2022). The

            Appellate Division in Dyer found that "[t]he 2007 EPI study establishes [defendant American

            Biltrite's] prima facie case as to specific causation" in that action. Id.

             190169/2021 WAGNER, MICHAEL C vs. AERCO INTERNATIONAL, INC ET AL                     Page 4 of 6
             Motion No. 003

                                                            4 of 6
[* 4]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 190169/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 296                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

                   Here, plaintiff correctly argues that, although the Appellate Division found this 2007 EPI

           study to be sufficient to establish entitlement to summary judgment in Dyer, the facts of the

           instant action and the instant plaintiffs exposure to the asbestos in defendant American Biltrite's

           Amtico tiles differ from the exposure of the plaintiff in the Dyer action. The standard for

           summary judgment is clear, and the facts of each individual action must be applied to the

           specific proofs provided. In the instant action, defendant American Biltrite has failed to meet its

            initial burden in unequivocally establishing that its Amtico tiles could not have contributed to

            causing plaintiffs mesothelioma. The 2007 EPI study has established, and the Appellate

            Division, First Department, has found in Dyer that "the levels of respirable asbestos emitted from

           the vinyl tiles did not exceed ambient levels" when such tiles were "cut, scored/snapped". Id.

            This study, relied upon by moving defendant, is wholly silent as to the levels of respirable

            asbestos released from and inhaled by plaintiff when the Amtico tiles are sanded. Plaintiff

            specifically testified that during his employment, he would use an electric belt sander to sand the

            Amtico tiles creating asbestos dust which he breathed in. Thus, defendant American Biltrite has

            failed to meet its burden under Dyer and Reid, supra. Given that it is undisputed that defendant

            American Biltrite manufactured or sold asbestos-containing Amtico tiles which exposed plaintiff

            to asbestos dust, and that moving defendant has failed to unequivocally establish that its Amtico

            tiles could not have contributed to causing plaintiffs mesothelioma when such tiles were

            routinely sanded releasing asbestos dust, the instant motion is denied. Moreover, plaintiff has

            offered conflicting evidence regarding causation, sufficient to raise issues of fact to preclude

            summary judgment.

                   Accordingly, it is

             190169/2021 WAGNER, MICHAEL C vs. AERCO INTERNATIONAL, INC ET AL                      Page 5 of 6
             Motion No. 003

                                                           5 of 6
[* 5]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 190169/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 296                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/19/2024

                   ORDERED that defendant American Biltrite's motion for summary judgment is denied

           in its entirety; and it is further

                   ORDERD that all parties shall appear in Part 40, room 422 of 60 Centre Street, New

           York, NY 10007 on May 7, 2024 at 9:30am for trial, and be prepared to proceed with jury

           selection; and it is further

                   ORDERED that within 14 days of entry, plaintiff shall serve a copy of this decision/order

           upon all parties with notice of entry.

                   This constitutes the Decision/Order of the Court.

                    4/19/2024
                      DATE                                                        ADAM SILVERA, J.S.C.

                                      ~
            CHECK ONE:                     CASE DISPOSED                 NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

            APPLICATION:

            CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:
                                           GRANTED

                                           SETTLE ORDER
                                                           0    DENIED

                                           INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN
                                                                         8
                                                                         GRANTED IN PART

                                                                         SUBMIT ORDER

                                                                         FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT
                                                                                                 □ OTHER

                                                                                                 □ REFERENCE

            190169/2021 WAGNER, MICHAEL C vs. AERCO INTERNATIONAL, INC ET AL                       Page 6 of 6
            Motion No. 003

                                                               6 of 6
[* 6]