Court Opinion

ID: 9940677
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-14 21:09:48.501388+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:24.496843
License: Public Domain

Caligiuri v A.O. Smith Corp.
               2024 NY Slip Op 30438(U)
                    February 9, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 190130/2022
                  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. 190130/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 281                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2024

                            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                      NEW YORK COUNTY
           PRESENT:        HON. ADAM SILVERA                                  PART                              13
                                                                  Justice
           -------------------X                                               INDEX NO.           190130/2022
            MARIO CALIGIURI, SUSAN CALIGIURI,
                                                                              MOTION DATE         10/24/2023
                                             Plaintiff,
                                                                              MOTION SEQ. NO.         003
                                       -v-
            A.O. SMITH CORPORATION, AERCO INTERNATIONAL,
            INC.,AII ACQUISITION LLC,BAKERS PRIDE OVEN CO.,
            INC.,BAKERS PRIDE OVEN CO. LLC,BMCE INC.,BRYAN
            STEAM LLC,BURNHAM LLC,CARRIER CORPORATION,
            CRANE CO., DAV CORPORATION, DAVID FABRICATORS
            OF NEW YORK, INC.,ECR INTERNATIONAL, INC.,FORT
            KENT HOLDINGS INC.,FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY
            CORPORATION, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,                                     AMENDED
            GREENE, TWEED & CO., INC.,INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS                         DECISION + ORDER ON
            CORPORATION, INTERNATIONAL COMFORT                                          MOTION
            PRODUCTS LLC,ITT LLC,JOHN CRANE, INC.,KOHLER
            COMPANY, LENNOX INDUSTRIES, INC.,MORSE TEC
            LLC,OLYMPIC GLOVE & SAFETY CO., INC.,PARAMOUNT
            GLOBAL, QCP, INC.,UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION,
            UTICA BOILERS, INC.,WEIL-MCLAIN INC.,JOHN DOE 1
            THROUGH JOHN DOE 75

                                             Defendant.

           --------------------X

           The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 162, 163, 164, 165,
           166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,188,216,217,218,219,220,221,222,223,226,230,231,
           232,233,234,235,236,237,238,239,240,241,242,243,244,245,246,247,248,249
           were read on this motion to/for                                        PRECLUDE

                  Upon review of the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this court sua sponte amends its

          Decision/Order dated Jan. 5, 2024 to correct a typo on page 2. The Decision/Order is amended as

          follows:

                  Upon the foregoing documents, it is ordered that the instant motion seeking to preclude

           plaintiffs causation experts Drs. Jacqueline Moline, Arthur Frank, and David Zhang is denied in

           accordance with the decision below.

            190130/2022 CALIGIURI, MARIO ET AL vs. A.O. SMITH CORPORATION ET AL                    Page 1 of4
            Motion No. 003

                                                            1 of 4
[* 1]
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 190130/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 281                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2024     1

                  Here, defendant QCP, Inc. f/k/a Bakers Pride Oven Company, Inc. ("Bakers Pride")

           seeks to preclude the abovenamed experts on the basis that they employ a cumulative exposure

           approach and have failed to quantify, with appropriate specificity under Nemeth v Brenntag N

          Am., 38 NY3d 336 (2022), the level of exposure to plaintiff Mario Caligiuri from Bakers Pride

          products and establish that such level causes mesothelioma. Plaintiff opposes, highlighting

          denials of defendant's similar motions in other cases and the experts' qualifications, and

           identifying no concrete issues raised by moving defendant regarding the experts' methodologies.

          Plaintiff also notes that moving defendant offers no expert testimony of their own in this matter.

                   Expert testimony in New York must meet the Frye standard, as articulated by the Court

          of Appeals in People v Wesley. "The long-recognized rule of Frye v United States .. . is that expert

          testimony based on scientific principles or procedures is admissible but only after a principle or

          procedure has 'gained general acceptance' in its specified field." People v Wesley, 83 NY2d 417,

          422 (1994) (citing Frye v United States, 293 F. 1013 [D.C. Cir. 1923]).

                  As to methodology, "[t]he burden of proving general acceptance rests upon the party

          offering the disputed expert testimony". Dovberg v Laubach, 154 A.D. 3d 810, 813 (2nd Dept

          2017). Plaintiff has offered evidence herein to establish that all three experts are using a

          generally accepted methodology and one that has been accepted in many similar cases. See

          Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant QCP, Inc.'s Motion to Preclude

          Plaintiffs Causation Experts, p. 3-8. Contrarily, moving defendant offers no expert opinion to

          dispute that these methods are not generally scientifically accepted. Moving defendant solely

          cites to other cases, including notable asbestos causation cases Parker v Mobil Oil Corp., 7

          NY3d 434 (2006) and Nemeth, supra, in which causation testimony by the experts in those two

          individual cases were deemed insufficient for those specific matters. Such reliance does not meet

            190130/2022 CALIGIURI, MARIO ET AL vs. A.O. SMITH CORPORATION ET AL                   Page 2 of4
            Motion No. 003

                                                            2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 190130/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 281                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2024

           the burden under Frye. In the instant action, plaintiff has provided evidence that the three experts

           are using methods that are generally acceptable in the scientific community.

                   Moving defendant's remaining arguments focus on the inadequacy of the experts'

           causation analysis to prove sufficient levels of exposure from defendant's products to cause

           illness. These are not arguments that apply to precluding the expert. These are arguments that

           apply to the weight of the expert's testimony and whether the plaintiff has established their

           prima facie case at the time of trial.

                   In a footnote in moving defendant's reply papers, defendant argues that "preclusion of

           plaintiff's experts under Parker/Nemeth creates an independent basis for summary judgment."

           Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Defendant QCP, Inc.'s Motion to Preclude

           Plaintiffs' Causation Experts, p. 2, fn. 1. However, the instant motion is not one for summary

           judgment. Were defendant to have made a summary judgment argument on this issue, the

           appropriate standard for moving defendant would 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 oflaw, that there was no causation." Id. Moving defendant has offered no

           such affirmative argument here to prove that their products could not have caused the plaintiff's

           injury, while plaintiffs have offered a conflicting viewpoint supported by multiple experts. 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. Here, plaintiff's experts have met the Frye

           standard sufficient to deny preclusion.

            190130/2022 CALIGIURI, MARIO ET AL vs. A.O. SMITH CORPORATION ET AL                   Page 3 of 4
            Motion No. 003

                                                            3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 190130/202i
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 281                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2024

                   Accordingly, it is

                   ORDERED that defendant Bakers Pride's motion to preclude plaintiffs experts'

           testimony 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.

                   02/09/2024
                     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

            190130/2022 CALIGIURI, MARIO ET AL vs. A.O. SMITH CORPORATION ET AL                     Page4 of 4
            Motion No. 003

                                                             4 of 4
[* 4]