Court Opinion

ID: 9958703
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:09:30.960729+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:38.611427
License: Public Domain

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.
                                                                                                INDEX NO. 190062/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1332                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024

                            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                      NEW YORK COUNTY
           PRESENT:        HON. ADAM SILVERA                                PART                             13
                                                                  Justice
                                                           -------X         INDEX NO.          190062/2021
            COREY G. TIPPIN,
                                                                            MOTION DATE        01/23/2024
                                              Plaintiff,
                                                                            MOTION SEQ. NO.        019
                                       - 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
                                                                              DECISION + ORDER ON
            LAURENT AMERICA, INC.,BLOCK DRUG COMPANY, INC.
            IND. AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO THE GOLD
                                                                                     MOTION
            BOND STERILIZING POWDER COMPANY, A/KIA THE
            GOLD BOND COMPANY, BLOCK DRUG CORPORATION
            IND. AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO 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

            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                                        Page 1 of4
             Motion No. 019

                                                             1 of 4
[* 1]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 190062/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1332                                                                    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

                  Upon the foregoing documents, it is ordered that the instant motion for summary

           judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 is denied in accordance with the decision below.

                  Here, defendants Johnson & Johnson ("J&J"), Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.

           ("JJCI"), and LTL Management LLC ("LTL") make a motion for summary judgment seeking to

           dismiss all claims against it on the basis that plaintiff Corey Tippin ("Mr. Tippin") has not

           established causation pursuant to Nemeth v Brenntag N. Am., 38 NY3d 336, 342-43 (2022).

           Moving defendants proffer expert testimony disputing plaintiffs theories of causation regarding

           cosmetic talc. See Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., and LTL

           Management LLC's Memorandum of Law In Support of Summary Judgment, p. 9.

                   In opposition, plaintiff offers multiple contradicting expert opinions regarding general

           causation as well as specific talc simulation studies with "estimates or ranges of the amount of

           asbestos inhaled during the application of talcum powder." See Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law

           In Opposition to Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. and LTL Management,

           LLC's Motions for Summary Judgment, p. 42-43.

                   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

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

                                                          2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 190062/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1332                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024

           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 vJC. 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

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

                   The appropriate standard at summary judgment for moving defendants J&J, JJCI, and

           L TL 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.

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

                                                          3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 190062/2021
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1332                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/04/2024

                   Here, moving defendants failed to meet their burden on a motion for summary judgment

           by affirmatively establishing that cosmetic talc from its products could not have caused Mr.

           Tippin's illness. Rather, moving defendants point to gaps in plaintiffs proof. Moreover, plaintiff

           has offered conflicting evidence. As such, plaintiff has raised sufficient issues of fact to preclude

           summary judgment and moving defendants have not met their burden as set forth by the

           Appellate Division in Reid and Dyer, supra.

                   Accordingly, it is

                   ORDERED that defendants J&J, JJCI, and LTL's motion for summary judgment is

           denied in its entirety; and it is further

                   ORDERED that within 30 days of entry plaintiff shall serve all parties with a copy of this

           Decision/Order with notice of entry.

                   This constitutes the Decision/Order of the Court.

                    4/3/2024
                     DATE                                                         ADAM SILVERA, J.S.C.

                                     §
            CHECK ONE:                    CASE DISPOSED                  NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

                                          GRANTED         0    DENIED    GRANTED IN PART         □ OTHER
            APPLICATION:                  SETTLE ORDER                   SUBMIT ORDER

            CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:         INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN     FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT   □ REFERENCE

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

                                                              4 of 4
[* 4]