Court Opinion

ID: 9916526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 01:09:14.745838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:33.303056
License: Public Domain

Daly v Amchem Prods., Inc.
               2023 NY Slip Op 34539(U)
                   December 27, 2023
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 190297/2019
                  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. 190297/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 191                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/27/2023

                            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                      NEW YORK COUNTY
           PRESENT:       HON. ADAM SILVERA                                 PART                             13
                                                                  Justice
           --------------------------- ----------------------------X        INDEX NO.         190297/2019
            MARY DALY, AS ADMINISTRATRIX FOR THE ESTATE
                                                                            MOTION DATE        10/10/2023
            OF JOHN B DALY JR. AND MARY DALY, INDIVIDUALL,

                                             Plaintiff,                     MOTION SEQ. NO. _ _ _00_2_ _

                                      -v-
            AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC.,        N/K/A RHONE POULENC
            AG COMPANY,      N/K/A BAYER CROPSCIENCE INC,
            PARAMOUNT GLOBAL, F/K/A VIACOMCBS INC.,F/K/A
            CBS CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION,
            F/K/A/ VIACOM INC.,SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CBS
            CORPORATION, A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION,
            F/K/A WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION,
            CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, CLEAVER BROOKS
            COMPANY, INC, CRANE CO, CRANE CO.
            INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR TO PACIFIC
            VALVES, CROSBY VALVE LLC,ELECTROLUX HOME
            PRODUCTS, INC.      INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS
            SUCCESSOR TO TAPPAN AND COPES-VULCAN,
            FISHER CONTROL VALVES, FISHER CONTROLS
            INTERNATIONAL, LLC       F/K/A FISHER CONTROLS CO.,
            AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO FISHER GOVERNOR
            COMPANY, FLOWSERVE US, INC. INDIVIDUALLY AND
            SUCCESSOR TO ROCKWELL MANUFACTURING
            COMPANY, EDWARD VALVE, INC.,NORDSTROM                             DECISION + ORDER ON
            VALVES, INC., EDWARD VOGT VALVE COMPANY, AND                             MOTION
            VOGT VALVE COMPANY, FOSTER WHEELER, L.L.C,
            GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, GOULDS PUMPS
            LLC,IMO INDUSTRIES, INC, LANDIS & GYR, INC, PFIZER,
            INC. (PFIZER), ROCKWE;LL AUTOMATION, INC.,
            INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS SUCCESSOR TO ROCKWELL
            INTERNATIONAL CORP., NORTH AMERICAN
            ROCKWELL, AND ROCKWELL MANUFACTURING
            COMPANY, ROCKWELL AUTOMATION, INC.,AS
            SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST         TO ALLEN~ BRADLEY
            COMPANY, LLC,U.S. RUBBER COMPANY (UNIROYAL),
            UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, CONSOLIDATED
            EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC.,COURTER &
            COMPANY INCORPORATED, INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS
            CORPORATION INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR IN
            INTEREST TO CARBORUNDUM, NORTON PACKO
            INDUSTRIAL CERAMICS, INC.,SAINT-GOBAIN
            ABRASIVES, INC.,INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS SUCCESSOR
            TO NORTON COMPANY,

                                             Defendant.

            190297/2019 DALY, JR, JOHN 8 vs. AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC.,                            Page 1 of 5
            Motion No. 002

                                                           1 of 5
[* 1]
                                                                                                       INDEX NO. 190297/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 191                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/27/2023

           ------------------------------------ -----------------X
           The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 120, 121, 122, 123,
           124, 125, 126, 127, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 154, 156, 157,
           162,163,164,165
           were read on this motion to/for                                JUDGMENT-SUMMARY
                  Upon the foregoing documents, it is ordered that the instant motion for summary

           judgment seeking dismissal of this action, pursuant to CPLR §3212, is granted for the reasons set

           forth below.

                  Here, defendant Crosby Valve, LLC ("Crosby") moves to dismiss this action on the

           grounds that plaintiff, John B. Daly, Jr. ("Mr. Daly") was not exposed to asbestos from any

           Crosby product. See Memorandum of Law in Support of Crosby Valve, LLC's Motion for

           Summary Judgment. In opposition, plaintiff highlights Mr. Daly's clear and unequivocal

           testimony identifying Crosby as a manufacturer of valves containing asbestos-containing parts

           during the course of his work as a Con Ed mechanic 1974-2012. See Affirmation in Opposition

           to Defendant Crosby Valve, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment.

                  Specifically, defendant Crosby's motion is based on Mr. Daly's testimony that he was

           exposed to asbestos from "flange gaskets" used along with Crosby valves, and not actually

           manufactured by Crosby. See Reply Memorandum of Law of Defendant Crosby Valve, LLC, In

           Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 3-4.

                  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". Winegradv New York

            190297/2019 DALY, JR, JOHN B vs. AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC.,                                   Page 2 of 5
            Motion No. 002

                                                            2 of 5
[* 2]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 190297/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 191                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/27/2023

           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 ofNew 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 J.C. Duggan, Inc., 180 AD2d 579,
                                                                                          st
           580 (1 st Dep't 1992), citing Dauman Displays, Inc. v Masturzo, 168 AD2d 204 (1 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 (Pt Dep't 1995).

                   Ordinarily, the appropriate standard at summary judgment for moving defendant Crosby

           in an asbestos action would be that of 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

              190297/2019 DALY, JR, JOHN B vs. AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC.,                              Page 3 of 5
            , Motion No. 002

                                                             3 of 5
[* 3]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 190297/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 191                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/27/2023

           judgment. However, in the instant motion, defendant Crosby correctly identifies In re New York

           City Asbestos Litigation (Dummitt), 27 NY3d 765, 799 (N.Y. 2016) as the standard governing

           defendant's liability for solely a third-party product.

                     The Court finds that Mr. Daly's testimony does not indicate any products manufactured

           by defendant Crosby, and that moving defendant has provided evidence that such gaskets were

           not required by Crosby for the use of their valves. Plaintiffs exhibits have been identified as

           largely withdrawn, irrelevant to Crosby as a manufacturer, or as containing no reference to the

           asbestos-containing gaskets at issue herein. See Reply Memorandum of Law, supra, p. 6-8. As

           .such, plaintiff has failed to raise an issue of fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment. Here,

          · plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that defendant Crosby was actively

           involved in the asbestos gaskets at issue herein or "substantially participated" in integrating such

           gaskets with Crosby-manufactured valves. See Dummitt, supra.

                     Accordingly, it is

                     ORDERED that defendant Crosby's motion for summary judgment is granted; and it is

           further

                     ORDERED that the complaint is dismissed in its entirety as against defendant Crosby

           with costs and disbursements to said defendant as taxed b,Y the Clerk of the Court, and the Clerk

           is directed to enter judgment accordingly in favor of said defendant; and it is further

                     ORDERED that the action is severed and continued against the remaining defendants;

           and it is further

                     ORDERED that the caption be amended to reflect the dismissal and that all future papers

            filed with the court bear the amended caption; and it is further

             190297/2019 DALY, JR, JOHN B vs. AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC.,                                 Page 4 of 5
             Motion No. 002

                                                            4 of 5
[* 4]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 190297/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 191                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/27/2023

                   ORDERED that within 30 days of entry defendant Crosby shall serve all parties with a

           copy of this Decision/Order with notice of entry.

                   This constitutes the Decision/Order of the Court.

                   12/27/2023
                     DATE
                                                                         {Jl~   ADAM SILVERA, J.S.C.

            CHECK ONE:                   CASE DISPOSED                 NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

            APPLICATION:

            CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:
                                         GRANTED   .

                                         SETTLE ORDER
                                                         □ DENIED

                                         INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN
                                                                       8
                                                                       GRANTED IN PART

                                                                       SUBMIT ORDER

                                                                       FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT
                                                                                                   □ OTHER

                                                                                                   □ REFERENCE

             190297/2019 DALY, JR, JOHN B vs. AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC.,                                Page 5 of 5
             Motion No. 002

                                                            5 of 5
[* 5]