Court Opinion

ID: 9958704
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:09:33.58508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:38.784305
License: Public Domain

Smith v Ashland, Inc
               2024 NY Slip Op 31116(U)
                      April 3, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 156780/2017
                  Judge: Lynn R. Kotler
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. 156780/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1217                                                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2024

            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
            COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 8
            - - --------------------------------x
            SANDRA SMITH, Individually and as Executrix of                          DECISION/ORDER AS TO
            The ESTATE of MARK SMITH,                                               MOT. SEQS. 37, 38, 40, 43 AND 44

                                                                                    INTERIM ORDER AS TO
                                                                                    MOT. SEQS. 39 AND 42
                                                Plaintiff(s),
                                                                                    INDEX No.: 156780/2017
                    -against-

            ASHLAND, INC et al.                                                     Present:
                                                                                    Hon. Lynn R. Kotler, J.S.C.
                                                Defendant( s).
            --------------------------------------------------------x
            The following papers_were read. on this motion to/for -=s:.i..j....,,(s=e.::i.gu=e=n=ce=--=3:..:..7....
                                                                                                                ) _ _ _ _ __
            Notice of Motion/Petition/O.S.C. -Affidavits - Exhibits ....... ECFS Doc. No(s). 752-780
            Notice of Cross-Motion/Answering Affidavits - Exhibits ........ ECFS Doc. No(s). 796-835
            12/16/22 Letter, Exhibits ................................................. ECFS Doc. No(s). 836-837
            Replying Affidavits ......................................................... ECFS Doc. No(s). 924-925
            OA Transcript. .................................................................ECFS Doc. No(s). 1211
            Stipulation ................................................................... ECFS Doc. No(s). 1212

            The following papers_were read on this motion to/for -=s...         i (=s=e.,.qu=e=n=c=e-=3..;:;.8.,_)_ _ _ _ __
            Notice of Motion/Petition/O.S.C. -Affidavits - Exhibits ....... ECFS Doc. No(s). 842-853
            Notice of Cross-Motion/Answering Affidavits- Exhibits ........ ECFS Doc. No(s). 948-997
            Replying Affidavits ......................................................... ECFS Doc. No(s). 1175
            OA Transcript. .............................................................. ECFS Doc. No(s). 1211

            The following papers_were read on this motion to/for ___s..,_j....    {s......
                                                                                     e....au......e____n___ce
                                                                                                            _____3___
                                                                                                                   9,_)_ _ _ _ __
            Notice of Motion/Petition/O.S.C. -Affidavits - Exhibits ... ECFS Doc. No(s). 871-878
            Notice of Cross-Motion/Answering Affidavits - Exhibits .... ECFS Doc. No(s). 1051-1073
            Replying Affidavits .................................................... ECFS Doc. No(s). 1178-1182
            OA Transcript.. ......................................................... ECFS Doc. No(s). __1=2""""'11______

            The following papers_were read on this motion to/for -=s...        i (=s=e_,.qu=e=n=c=e--=4=0.,_)~ - - - - -
            Notice of Motion/Petition/O.S.C. -Affidavits- Exhibits ... ECFS Doc. No(s). 879-887
            Notice of Cross-Motion/Answering Affidavits - Exhibits ... ECFS Doc. No(s). 1140-1160
            Replying Affidavits ................................................... ECFS Doc. No(s). 1184-1188
            OATranscript. ......................................................... ECFS Doc. No(s).--=1=2-=-11~--

                                                                      1

[* 1]                                                           2 of 19
                                                                                                                        INDEX NO. 156780/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1217                                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2024

            The following papers_were read on this motion to/for ..:s"'-j....,(s=e=g=u=e:..:.nce=-=-4-'-'2=).___ _ _ _ __
            Notice of Motion/Petition/O.S.C. -Affidavits - Exhibits ... ECFS Doc. No(s). 864-870
            Notice of Cross-Motion/Answering Affidavits - Exhibits .... ECFS Doc. No(s). 1034-1050
            Replying Affidavits .................................................... ECFS Doc. No(s) .....:1--!..17.:..;:3::....__
            OA Transcript. .......................................................... ECFS Doc. No(s).--=1=2...,_11'--_

            The following papers_were read on this motion to/for . .: S=.i. j~{s::.::e::.::gi.:::u~e,!.!n.:::.;ce=--:.4=3),____ _ _ _ __
            Notice of Motion/Petition/O.S.C. -Affidavits - Exhibits .... ECFS Doc. No(s).854-863
            Notice of Cross-Motion/Answering Affidavits- Exhibits .... ECFS Doc. No(s).1097-1139
            Replying Affidavits ...................................................... ECFS Doc. No(s) .. .,_11=-=8.;: ;. 3_ _
            OA Transcript.. .......................................................... ECFS Doc. No(s)."'"'-'12=-1.a...:1~-

            The following papers_were read on this motion to/for ...::s=.i..i~Cs::.::e::.::gi.:::u~e.!.!n.:::.;ce=--:.4..:.4),____ _ _ _ __
            Notice of Motion/Petition/O.S.C. -Affidavits- Exhibits                             ECFS Doc. No(s). _ __
            Notice of Cross-Motion/Answering         Affidavits   -   Exhibits                 ECFS Doc. No(s). _ __
            Replying Affidavits                                                                ECFS Doc. No(s). _ __
            OATranscript. ..............................................................       ECFS                 Doc. No(s). 1211

            Kotler, J.:

                     This action arises from plaintiffs decedent's exposure to products containing

            benzene while working as a mechanic. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that toxic exposure

            to benzene-containing products caused the decedent, Mark Smith, to contract

            Myelodysplastic Syndrome ("MDS") and subsequently pass away in 2018. Plaintiff is

            Sandra Smith, suing individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Mark Smith,

            deceased, for negligence, breach of warranty, strict producfs liability, fraudulent

            misrepresentation, loss of consortium, wrongful death and a claim under the New York

            Survival Act. There are seven motions for summary judgment presently pending, which

            are hereby consolidated for the court's consideration and disposition in this single

            decision/order. At the outset, motion sequence 37 has been withdrawn since it was

            orally argued (see NYSCEF Doc. No. 1212). The remaining motions are sequences 38-

                                                                          2

[* 2]                                                                3 of 19
                                                                                         INDEX NO. 156780/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1217                                                            RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2024

            40 and 42-44.

                   In motion sequence 38, defendant United States Steel Corporation {"US Steel")

            moves for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims against it for fraudulent

            misrepresentation and breach of express and implied warranties. Plaintiff opposes US

            Steel's motion with respect to her fraud claim but does not oppose dismissal of her

            warranty claims against US Steel.

                   In motion sequence 39, defendant CA Acquisition LLC d/b/a Chicago Aerosol

            ("CA") moves for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims for gross negligence,

            breach of warranty, fraudulent misrepresentation and punitive damages against it.

            Plaintiff opposes that motion.

                  In motion sequence 40, defendants Chevron U.S.A. Inc. {"Chevron") and Union

            Oil Company of California, d/b/a Unocal ("Unocal") move for summary judgment,

            arguing that plaintiff cannot demonstrate that the decedent was exposed to Chevron

            gasoline supplied to Gulf Oil Limited Partnership ("Gulf') or any other product

            manufactured by Unocal containing benzene. Plaintiff does not oppose Chevron's

            motion but contends that there is sufficient evidence that the decedent was exposed to

            benzene contained in Safety-Kleen 105 solvent ("Safety Kleen"), and that Unocal was a

            "main" supplier of benzene-containing mineral spirits comprising Safety Kleen.

                  In motion sequence 42, defendant The Berkebile Oil Company, Inc. ("Berkebile")

            moves for partial summary judgment dismissing Plaintiff's claims for gross negligence,

            breach of warranty, fraudulent misrepresentation, and punitive damages. Plaintiff

            opposes that motion.

                  In motion sequence 43, defendant Sunoco (R&M) LLC {"Sunoco") moves to

                                                        3

[* 3]                                               4 of 19
                                                                                          INDEX NO. 156780/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1217                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2024

            dismiss plaintiff's claims against it on the grounds that there is no evidence the

            decedent was exposed to a solvent manufactured, supplied or distributed by Sunoco.

            Plaintiff opposes the motion and contends that "[t]here is ample evidence that Mr. Smith

            was exposed to benzene from Sunoco's mineral spirits supplied to Safety-Kleen

            Systems, Inc. (hereinafter "Safety-Kleen") and to Sunoco gasoline delivered to Mr.

            Smith's employer, Classic Auto."

                   Finally, in motion sequence 44, defendant Illinois Tool Works, Inc. ("ITW') moves

            for partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claims against it related to the use of

            Permetex products and dismissing all of plaintiff's claims for breach of warranty,

            fraudulent misrepresentation and punitive damages. Plaintiff does not oppose dismissal

            of her claims related to Permetex products nor her breach of warranty claims, but

            otherwise opposes the motion.

            Facts relevant to all motions

                  The decedent was a mechanic on Long Island who worked at various service

            stations from approximately 1965 through 2016. Specifically, the decedent worked at his

            uncle's service station, Major Texaco, from 1978 to 1980, at Major Mobil, a service

            station he operated from 1980 to 2003, and at Classic Auto from 2008 to 2016. During

            that time, plaintiff alleges that the decedent was exposed to benzene-containing

            products which led to him contracting MOS, which he was diagnosed with on January

            25, 2016 and which caused his death on June 7, 2018. Plaintiff contends that the

            defendants failed to warn the decedent about the known dangers of benzene-containing

            products.

                                                         4

[* 4]                                                5 of 19
                                                                                            INDEX NO. 156780/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1217                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2024

                   Previously, plaintiff and the decedent brought an action for the same alleged

            injuries and tortious activity against some of the same defendants in the Philadelphia

            Court of Common Pleas on March 2, 2017 (the "Pennsylvania Action"). Thereafter,

            plaintiff and the decedent brought this action on July 27, 2017. After several defendants

            were dismissed in the Philadelphia Action on jurisdictional grounds, plaintiff stipulated to

            dismissal of the Philadelphia Action and plaintiff and her decedent filed a Second

            Amended Complaint in this action which added defendants dismissed from the

            Pennsylvania Action.

                   After the decedent passed away, plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint on

            September 6, 2018 which names twenty-four defendants. The Third Amended

            Complaint asserts seven causes of action: (1) Negligence/Gross Negligence; (2) Breach

            of Warranty; (3) Strict Products Liability; (4) Fraudulent Misrepresentation; (5) Loss of

            Consortium; (6) Wrongful Death; and (7) a claim under the New York Survival Act. Issue

            has been joined as to all the moving defendants, and the motions were timely brought

            after note of issue was filed on September 30, 2022. Therefore, summary judgment

            relief is available.

            Applicable standard of law

                   On a motion for summary judgment, the proponent bears the initial burden of

            setting forth evidentiary facts to prove a prima facie case that would entitle it to

            judgment in its favor, without the need for a trial (CPLR 3212; Winegrad v. NYU Medical

            Center, 64 NY2d 851 [1985]; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

            If the proponent fails to make out its prima facie case for summary judgment, however,

                                                          5

[* 5]                                                 6 of 19
                                                                                              INDEX NO. 156780/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1217                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2024

            then its motion must be denied, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers

            (Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital, 68 NY2d 320 [1986]; Ayotte v. Gervasio, 81 NY2d 1062

            [1993]).

                   Granting a motion for summary judgment is the functional equivalent of a trial,

            therefore it is a drastic remedy that should not be granted where there is any doubt as

            to the existence of a triable issue (Rotuba Extruders v. Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223 [1977]).

            The court's function on these motions is limited to "issue finding," not "issue

            determination" (Sillman v. Twentieth Century Fox Film, 3 NY2d 395 [19571).

            Motion sequence 38

                   Plaintiff opposes US Steel's motion with respect to her fraud claim but does not

            oppose dismissal of her warranty claims against US Steel. Therefore, at the outset, US

            Steel's motion is granted to the extent that plaintiff's warranty claims against US Steel

            are severed and dismissed. With respect to US Steel, Plaintiff asserts that the decedent

            worked with Liquid Wrench, a product manufactured by defendant Radiator Specialty

            Company ("RSC"), which allegedly contained raffinate supplied by US Steel as an

            ingredient At his deposition, the decedent testified that he used Liquid Wrench as a

            penetrating oil from approximately the late 1960s through 2015.

                   Plaintiff claims that "defendants acted to manipulate public information and

            knowledge in order to give the impression that benzene and benzene-containing

            products were safe, or did not present the full scope of danger that they did, and to

            prevent the disclosure of the information available to the defendants regarding the true

            and full nature of the health hazards of benzene and benzene-containing products."

                                                         6

[* 6]                                                7 of 19
                                                                                             INDEX NO. 156780/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1217                                                                RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2024

            Meanwhile, US Steel maintains that plaintiff's fraud claim against it should be dismissed

            because US Steel did not owe plaintiff a duty to disclose the allegedly withheld

            information to RSC about the safety of raffinate.

                   "The essential elements of a cause of action for fraud are 'representation of a

            material existing fact, falsity, scienter, deception and injury"' (New York Univ. v.

            Continental Ins. Co., 87 NY2d 308 [1995], quoting Channel Master Corp. v. Aluminum

            Ltd. Sales, 4 NY2d 403 [1958]). A cause of action for fraudulent concealment requires,

            in addition to the four elements of fraudulent misrepresentation, "an allegation that the

            defendant had a duty to disclose material information and that it failed to do so"

            (Mandarin Trading Ltd. v. Wildenstein, 16 NY3d 173 [2011] (citations omitted]).

                   There is interplay between the duty to warn and fraudulent concealment, where

            the latter may give rise to the former (see i.e. Standish-Parkin v. Lorillard Tobacco Co.,

            12 AD3d 301 [1st Dept 2004] [" ... in her first cause of action for failure to warn ...

            (p]laintiff presented sufficient evidence to raise triable issues of fact as to the state of the

            public's common knowledge of the risks of cigarette smoking prior to 1969, and whether

            decedent had relied upon defendants' various allegedly fraudulent misrepresentations

            and concealments of the truth concerning the safety and health risks of cigarettes"]).

            "[A] manufacturer has a duty to warn against latent dangers resulting from foreseeable

            uses of its product of which it knew or should have known. Additionally, the

            manufacturer must warn of dangers arising from the product's intended use or a

            reasonably foreseeable unintended use. The manufacturer's duty also includes a legal

            obligation to issue warnings regarding hazards arising from foreseeable uses of the

            product about which the manufacturer learns after the sale of the product. The duty

                                                           7

[* 7]                                                  8 of 19
                                                                                                INDEX NO. 156780/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1217                                                                  RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2024

            extends to the original or ultimate purchasers of the product, to employees of those

            purchasers, and to third persons exposed to a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of

            harm by the failure to warn" (In re New York City Asbestos Utig., 27 NY3d 765, 788-89

            [2016] [internal citations omitted]).

                   It is true that in the absence of a fiduciary relationship between parties, there is

            no duty to warn about inherent and foreseeable risks (Blake v. Ford Motor Co., 41 AD3d

            150 [1st Dept 2007] citing McGarr v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 19 AD3d 254

            [1st Dept 2005] and Elghanian v. HaNey, 249 AD2d 206 [1st Dept 1998}). However,

            plaintiff maintains that she properly asserted a fraudulent misrepresentation claim, not

            merely omissions claim, which the court agrees with (see third amended complaint,

            paragraphs 111, 143 and 146). Substantively, plaintiff points to evidence that RSC

            requested information regarding the health hazards of raffinate and evidence that US

            Steel potentially misrepresented the amount of benzene contained in raffinate. On these

            facts, the court finds that plaintiff has at least raised a triable issue of fact sufficient to

            defeat US Steel's motion to dismiss the fraud claim based upon fraudulent

            misrepresentation.

                   Plaintiff further argues that a fraud claim based on omission also lies against US

            Steel. US Steel disagrees and contends that such a claim is unavailing absent a

            fiduciary relationship between US Steel and RSC. As opposed to an affirmative

            misrepresentation, a fraud cause of action can also be predicated upon a duty to

            disclose information and an omission. A fiduciary relationship can give rise to the duty to

            disclose, which does not ordinarily exist between parties engaged in an arm's-length

            transaction (Dembeck v. 220 Cent. Park South, LLC, 33 AD3d 491 [1 st Dept 2006]).

                                                            8

[* 8]                                                   9 of 19
                                                                                            INDEX NO. 156780/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1217                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2024

            However, the duty to disclose may also be predicated upon the "special facts" doctrine,

            "where one party's superior knowledge of the essential facts renders a transaction

            without disclosure inherently unfair" (Swersky v. Dreyer and Taub, 219 AD2d 321 [1 st

            Dept 1996]).

                   In Swersky, the First Department held that there was an issue of fact as to

            whether the special facts doctrine could be applied to save an omission-based fraud

            claim. The Swersky Court explained that a "disparity in the level of information available

            to [one party], but not to [the other], places this case within the ambit of the 'special

            facts' doctrine, and ... whether plaintiffs could have through 'the exercise of ordinary

            intelligence' independently ascertained that [information]" must also be determined.

                   Here, US Steel has shown that it did not exclusively possess knowledge vis-a-vis

            RCS and further that RCS could have obtained knowledge of the dangers of Benzene-

            containing compounds and products based on information that was available to the

            general population and/or otherwise ascertainable by RCS' own employees. The court

            disagrees with plaintiff that she has raised a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat US

            Steel's motion on this point. Accordingly, the balance of US Steel's motion for summary

            judgment dismissing plaintiff's fraud claim based upon omission is granted and said

            claim is severed and dismissed.

            Motion sequences 39 and 42

                   Motion sequence 39 and 42 are interrelated, since the movant in motion

            sequence 39, CA, manufactured a product called 2 Plus 2 Gum Cutter ("Gum Cutter")

            for movant in motion sequence 42, Berkebile, which sold said product. Therefore, the

                                                          9

[* 9]                                                 10 of 19
                                                                                            INDEX NO. 156780/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1217                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2024

            court will consider them together. CA maintains that certificates of analysis for

            component solvents used in the manufacture of Gum Cutter reveals that it contained

            only "miniscule" amounts of benzene which thus required no warning. In turn, plaintiff

            maintains that the motions are procedurally improper, since movants have raised facts

            and arguments on reply for the first time, depriving plaintiff an opportunity to oppose

            same. Further, plaintiff's counsel points to the certificates of analysis, claiming they do

            not support CA and Berkebile's arguments and further that CA has failed to present

            expert testimony establishing that the Gum Cutter was not dangerous of that the level of

            benzene in the product otherwise complied with OSHA requirements.

                   The court cannot overlook the procedural issue raised by plaintiff on these

            motions and will grant plaintiff an opportunity to submit a surreply. While counsel for the

            movants asserted that the evidence submitted on reply was merely responsive to the

            arguments raised by plaintiff in opposition, given the drastic effect of the relief

            requested, the court cannot deprive plaintiff an opportunity to develop her record as to

            whether the Gum Cutter or its components contained a sufficient amount of benzene

            thereby triggering a reporting and/or labeling obligation. Therefore, the court will grant

            plaintiff 30 days from notice of entry of this order to submit a surreply and will grant CA

            and Berkebile an opportunity to submit a surreply within 30 days thereafter. The motions

            will be calendared for submission of papers, only, on June 14, 2024. No appearances.

            Motion sequence 40

                   At the outset, motion sequence 40 by Chevron and Unocal is granted to the

            extent that plaintiff's claims against Chevron are severed and dismissed without

                                                         10

[* 10]                                               11 of 19
                                                                                             INDEX NO. 156780/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1217                                                               RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2024

            opposition. The court turns to the balance of the motion, with respect to Unocal, which

            plaintiff opposes. Unocal argues that there is no evidence that plaintiff's decedent was

            exposed to Safety Kleen containing mineral spirits supplied by Unocal. In opposition,

            plaintiff argues that Unocal has inappropriately attempted to shift its burden on this

            motion. The court disagrees with plaintiff.

                   Plaintiff's decedent testified that he used Safety Kleen to clean parts as a

            mechanic during his career. Further, Unocal was a supplier of mineral spirits/105 solvent

            for use in Safety Kleen during the time plaintiff's decedent used the product. Plaintiff's

            counsel points to deposition testimony given by a Safety Kleen witness, James Breece,

            on January 28, 2014, admitting that Unocal was a supplier of mineral spirts for the

            subject product from 1979 until at least 1993. Plaintiff's counsel further attempts to

            characterize Unocal as a "main" supplier based on Breece's deposition testimony.

                   The facts here are more similar to those in Schiarldi v. U.S. Min. Prods. (194

            AD2d 482 [1st Dept 1993]), than they are not. In that case, the First Department held

            that the plaintiff in that case had failed to set forth evidentiary facts showing the

            circumstances of his exposure to asbestos-containing product or its likelihood. Here,

            while plaintiff's decedent testified that he was exposed to Safety Kleen and some

            batches of Safety Kleen were comprised of Unocal's benzene-containing mineral spirits,

            evidence of a nexus between Unocal's product and plaintiff is absent here. Therefore,

            just as in Schiarldi, there is no evidence showing the circumstances or likelihood of

            plaintiff's decedent's exposure to Unocal's particular product. Plaintiff's counsel's

            attempt to paint Unocal as a "main" supplier is not substantiated by admissible

            evidence. Indeed, Breece's deposition testimony merely listed Unocal as one of several

                                                          11

[* 11]                                                12 of 19
                                                                                          INDEX NO. 156780/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1217                                                             RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2024

            companies which Safety Kleen purchased mineral spirits from, including Amoco,

            Sunoco, Exxon, Shell, Hunt Refining and "probably others ... " On these facts, a jury

            verdict against Unocal based upon plaintiff's decedent's alleged exposure to Unocal's

            mineral spirits would be based upon rank speculation that plaintiff came into contact

            with Unocal's mineral spirits. Therefore, plaintiff's claims against Unocal must be

            dismissed as a matter of law.

                   Accordingly, the balance of motion sequence 40 for summary judgment

            dismissing plaintiff's claims against Unocal is granted.

            Motion sequence 43

                   Sunoco also argues, inter alia, that plaintiff cannot establish that her decedent

            used Safety Kleen which was comprised of mineral spirits supplied by Sunoco.

            However, in contrast to Unocal's motion, plaintiff has pointed to evidence that Sunoco

            supplied mineral spirits to Safety-Kleens' Clayton, New Jersey facility, which in turn

            supplied Safety-Kleen's North Amityville, New York branch, which then serviced

            locations where plaintiff's decedent worked. Sunoco has otherwise failed to

            demonstrate that its mineral spirits were not contained in Safety-Kleen products used by

            plaintiff's decedent and therefore has not met its burden on this motion. Relatedly, the

            court rejects Sunoco's argument that plaintiff's decedent's testimony lacked sufficient

            proof that he used Safety-Kleen branded parts washers. His testimony is sufficient to at

            least raise a triable issue of fact on this point.

                   Plaintiff further contends that her decedent was also exposed to benzene

            contained in Sunoco's gasoline delivered to his employer, Classic Auto. The decedent

                                                           12

[* 12]                                                 13 of 19
                                                                                           INDEX NO. 156780/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1217                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2024

            specifically testified that when he pumped gas, gasoline would get on his skin and that

            he breathed in gasoline vapors from the gas hoses. He further testified that he was

            exposed to Sunoco's gasoline on a near-daily basis when it was delivered to service

            stations and transferred to underground storage tanks as well as when he changed

            pump filters and cleaned his tools and hands. On these facts, Sunoco'sliability may be

            reasonably inferred since plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to establish the

            decedent's regular use and exposure to gasoline which Sunoco supplied to Classic Auto

            (see i.e. Reid v. Georgia-Pacific, Corp., 212 AD2sd 462 [1st Dept 1995]).

                   Finally, Sunoco argues that plaintiff cannot establish "specific causation". There is

            no dispute on this record that exposure to a certain amount of benzene for a certain

            period of time can cause MOS. Thus, it is Sunoco's burden to show that its products

            which plaintiff claims her decedent was exposed to contained an insufficient amount of

            benzene to cause and/or contribute to the decedent's MOS (see i.e. Dyer v. Amchem

            Prods. Inc., 207 AD3d 408 [1st Dept 2022]). Sunoco has wholly failed to meet this

            burden.

                  Assuming arguendo that Sunoco had met its burden on this point, plaintiff has at

            least raised a triable issue of fact through an affidavit from its own expert, Robert

            Laumbach, M.D., M.P.H., C.I.H., D.A.B.T., a medical doctor specializing in internal

            medicine and occupational/environmental medicine with over twenty-five years of

            experience in the analysis of adverse health effects of occupational and environmental

            agents. Not only does Dr. Laumbach note that benzene "is recognized as a human

            carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) by all major agencies and authorities that regulate or

            produce guidelines to prevent and control cancer from occupational and environmental

                                                         13

[* 13]                                               14 of 19
                                                                                           INDEX NO. 156780/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1217                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2024

            chemicals", but also that "it is well established and generally accepted that benzene

            causes MOS" and that "there is no threshold below which benzene does 1_1ot increase

            the risk of leukemia and lymphoma. In general, the dose-response curve between

            benzene exposure and leukemia risk appears to be linear at very low ppm-yr doses." Dr.

            Laumbach further provides analysis of the risks associated with estimates of benzene-

            exposure that plaintiff's decedent testified to, thereby demonstrating specific causation

            (see i.e. Come/Iv. 360 West 51st Street Realty, LLC, 22 NY3d 762, 785 [2014]). On this

            record, Dr. Laumbach's opinions are sufficient to at least raise a triable issue of fact on

            causation.

                  Accordingly, Sunoco's motion is denied in its entirety.

            Motion sequence 44

                   At the outset, ITW's motion is granted without opposition to the extent that

            plaintiff's claims related to ITW's Permetex products as well as plaintiff's claims for

            breach of warranty against ITW are severed and dismissed. The balance of the motion

            seeking dismissal of plaintiff's fraudulent misrepresentation claim and claim for punitive

            damages remains.

                   ITW and its predecessors manufactured and/or distributed a Gumout carburetor

            cleaner which came in aerosol cans since at least 1980. Testimony and evidence

            previously elicited in this case shows that plaintiff's decedent used Gumout products,

            from 6-Bx a month up to 2-3x a week at various times, while working at Major Texaco,

            Major Mobil and Classic Auto.

                                                         14

[* 14]                                               15 of 19
                                                                                              INDEX NO. 156780/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1217                                                                RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2024

                   ITW first argues that plaintiff lacks sufficient evidence that ITW made a false

            representation to her decedent. Contrary to ITW's contention, plaintiff has in fact pointed

            to sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact on this point, to wit, warning labels

            which did not list benzene as a component or that the benzene-containing product could

            cause cancer, MSDS sheets, an internal audit by Penzzoil, the manufacturer of Gumout

            products prior to ITW's acquisition of the brand in 2010, and a 1980 internal

            memorandum from the federal government noting benzene content contained in

            Gumout Jet Spray. While ITW argues that the evidence cited by Plaintiff, "at best, could

            only relate to a negligent failure to warn claim, not one for fraudulent misrepresentation",

            the court disagrees. On this record, there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable

            fact finder could conclude that ITW's predecessor, the manufacturer of Gumout

            products, had a duty to warn of the risks of exposure to its benzene-containing products

            and the warnings that were actually provided were insufficient based upon what ITW's

            predecessors knew or should have known (see i.e. In re New York City Asbestos Litig.,

            27 N.Y.3d 765, 788-89 [2016]). Further, plaintiff's decedent specifically testified that he

            read product labels, especially if they had warning signs, thereby demonstrating

            justifiable reliance.

                   To the extent that ITW seeks to avoid liability as a successor, the court rejects

            this argument. Generally, a corporation which acquires the assets of another is not

            liable for the predecessor corporation's torts (Semenetz v. Sherling & Walden, 7 NY3d

            194 [2006]). There are, however, exceptions to this rule, which "arise where a successor

            corporation expressly or impliedly assumes its predecessor's tort liability; or there is a

            consolidation or merger of seller and purchaser; or the purchasing corporation is a mere

                                                          15

                                                      16 of 19
[* 15]
                                                                                            INDEX NO. 156780/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1217                                                                 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2024

            continuation of the selling corporation; or the transaction is entered into fraudulently to

            escape such obligations" (id. quoting Schumacher v. Richards Shear Co., Inc., 59 NY2d

            239, 245 [1983] [internal quotations omitted)). Here, ITW has failed to present evidence

            that none of the general exceptions apply and thus that' ITW cannot be held liable for its

            predecessor's torts. Accordingly, ITW's motion for summary judgment dismissing

            plaintiffs fraudulent misrepresentation claim is denied.

                   Finally, as for the punitive damages claim, ITW's arguments are unavailing. The

            court agrees with plaintiff that her allegations of ITW's fraud and gross negligence

            (which ITW has not moved for summary judgment on) support an award of punitive

            damages by a jury. "Punitive damages are not to compensate the injured party but

            rather to punish the tortfeasor and to deter this wrongdoer and others similarly situated

            .from indulging in the same conduct in the future" (Ross v. Louise Wise Services, Inc., 8

            N.Y.3d 478, 489, 836 N.Y.S.2d 509, 868 N.E.2d 189 [2007]). Punitive damages are

            available upon proof of "the conscious disregard of the rights of others or for conduct so

            reckless as to amount to such disregard" (Harlfor Acc. And lndem. Co. v. Village of

            Hempstead, 48 NY2d 218 [1979] citing PJI 2:278). To sustain an award of punitive

            damages, the defendant must purposefully cause, or be grossly indifferent to causing,

            injury (Marinaccio v Town of Clarence, 20 NY3d 506, 512 [2013]). "[D]efendant's

            behavior cannot be said to be merely volitional; an unmotivated, unintentional or even

            accidental result of a legally intentional act cannot, alone, qualify." (Id.)

                   On this record, ITW's predecessor-in-interest placed benzene-containing

            products into the stream of commerce despite the knowledge that benzene can cause

            cancer and failed to warn its product users of the known risks of exposure to benzene.

                                                           16

[* 16]                                                17 of 19
                                                                                             INDEX NO. 156780/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1217                                                                RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2024

            This is precisely the type of conduct that can.support a punitive damages claim.
                                                    I

            Accordingly, the balance of ITW's motion is denied.

            Conclusion

                    In accordance herewith, it is hereby

                    ORDERED that motion sequence 37 is withdrawn; and it is further

                    ORDERED that motion sequence 38 is granted to the following extent: [1]

            plaintiff's breach of warranty claims against defendant United States Steel Corporation

            are severed and dismissed; and [2] plaintiffs fraud claim based upon omission is

            severed and dismissed; and [3] the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly; and

            it is further

                    ORDERED that the balance of motion sequence 38 is denied; and it is further

                    ORDERED that motion sequences 39 and 42 are adjourned for submission of

            papers as follows:

                            [1] plaintiff shall submit a surreply within 30 days from notice of entry of

                            this decision/order;

                            [2] CA and Berkebile shall submit a surreply within 30 days thereafter; and

                            [3]motion sequence numbers 39 and 42 are restored to the calendar for

                            submission of papers, only, on June 14, 2024. No appearances;

                    And it is further ORDERED that motion sequence 40 is granted to the extent that

            plaintiff's claims against defendant Chevron U.S.A. Inc. and Union Oil Company of

            California, d/b/a Unocal are severed and dismissed and the Clerk is directed to enter

            judgment accordingly; and it is further

                                                           17

[* 17]                                                  18 of 19
                                                                                           INDEX NO. 156780/2017
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1217                                                              RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/03/2024

                      ORDERED that motion sequence 43 is denied in its entirety; and it is further

                      ORDERED that motion sequence 44 is granted only to the extent that plaintiff's

             claims related to defendant Illinois Tool Works, lnc.'s Permetex products as well as

             plaintiff's claims for breach of warranty against Illinois Tool Works, Inc., are severed and

             dismissed without opposition and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly;

             and it is fur:ther

                      ORDERED that the balance of motion sequence 44 is denied.

                      Any requested relief not expressly addressed herein has nonetheless been

             considered and is hereby expressly denied and this constitutes the Decision and Order

             of the court.

             Dated:

                                                                      Hon. Lynn R. Kotler, J.S.C.

                                                         18

[* 18]                                               19 of 19