Court Opinion

ID: 9916525
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 01:09:12.920808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:33.305727
License: Public Domain

Desiena v Aerco Intl. Inc.
               2023 NY Slip Op 34540(U)
                   December 27, 2023
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 190459/2018
                  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. 190459/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 405                                                                     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.           190459/2018
             RAYMOND DESIENA,
                                                                            MOTION DATE          10/10/2023
                                              Plaintiff,
                                                                            MOTION SEQ. NO.          002
                                        -v-
             AERCO INTERNATIONAL INC.,BMCE, INC.,IN ITSELF
             AND AS SUCCESSOR TO UNITED CENTRIFUGAL PUMP
             CO., CARLISLE INDUSTRIAL BRAKE & FRICTION,
             INC.,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, CERTAIN-TEED CORPORATION,
             CRANE CO., DURR MEGTEC, LLC,EATON
             CORPORATION AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO
             EATON ELECTRICAL INC. AND CUTLER-HAMMER
             INC.,ETHYL CORPORATION, FOSTER WHEELER
             ENERGY CORPORATION, GENERAL ELECTRIC
             COMPANY, GOSS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,
             HARRIS CORPORATION, HEIDELBERG USA,
                                                                               DECISION + ORDER ON
             INC.,INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION F/K/A THE
             CARBORUNDUM COMPANY, INGERSOLL-RAND
                                                                                      MOTION
             COMPANY, INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, JOHN
             CRANE INC.,KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY, MANROLAND
             GOSS WEB SYSTEMS AMERICAS LLC,METROPOLITAN
             LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, MONTALVO
             CORPORATION, NEXEN GROUP, INC.,INDIVIDUALLY
             AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO HORTON
             MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.,ROCKWELL
             AUTOMATION INC.,INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
             SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO ALLEN BRADLEY
             COMPANY, SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC (USA), INC.,F/K/A
             SQUARE D COMPANY, UNION CARBIDE
             CORPORATION, WARNER ELECTRIC LLC,JOHN DOE 1
             THROUGH JOHN DOE 75 (FICTITIOUS)

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

            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 124, 125, 126, 127,
            128,129,130,131,132,134,282,309,310,311,312,313,314,315,316,317,362,363
            were read on this motion to/for                     SUMMARY JUDGMENT(AFTER JOINDER

             190459/2018 DESIENA, RAYMOND vs. AERCO INTERNATIONAL INC.                           Page 1 of 6
             Motion No. 002

                                                             1 of 6
[* 1]
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 190459/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 405                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/27/2023

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

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

           forth below.

                   Here, defendant Heidelberg USA, Inc. moves for summary judgment to dismiss this

           action on the grounds that plaintiff-decedent, Raymond Desiena ("Mr. Desiena") did not

           establish exposure to asbestos from his work on Heidelberg-brand printing presses as an operator

           and pressman on printing presses from approximately the mid-1960s-1980s. See Defendant

           Heidelberg USA, Inc.'s Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment,

           p. 2.

                   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 oflaw. 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 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-

             190459/2018 DESIENA, RAYMOND vs. AERCO INTERNATIONAL INC.                           Page 2 of 6
             Motion No. 002

                                                          2 of 6
[* 2]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 190459/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 405                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/27/2023

           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).

                   The appropriate standard at summary judgment for moving defendant Heidelberg 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.

                   Here, moving defendant's motion relies primarily upon challenging Mr. Desiena's

           testimony as insufficient to identify asbestos exposure from Heidelberg printing presses, along

           with the affidavit of their corporate representative, Shawn McDougall. See id. at p. 5-6. Mr.

           McDougall's affidavit states generally, based upon his personal knowledge and review of

           company records, that "no Heidelberg offset presses or related equipment as manufactured and

           sold incorporated asbestos or asbestos-containing components of any kind" including "the brake

           mechanisms" as identified by Mr. Desiena. See Notice of Motion, Affidavit of Shawn

           McDougall, dated March 18, 2020, p. 1-2. Mr. McDougall was not employed at Heidelberg

           during the period of Mr. Desiena's exposure alleged herein. However, Mr. McDougall alleges

             190459/2018 DESIENA, RAYMOND vs. AERCO INTERNATIONAL INC.                             Page 3 of 6
             Motion No. 002

                                                           3 of 6
[* 3]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 190459/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 405                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/27/2023

                     I
           that he has personal knowledge based upon his deposition, at which he testified to his familiarity

           with Heidelberg printing presses manufactured from approximately the mid-1970s onwards. See

           Affirmation in Support of Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant Heidelberg USA; Inc.' s Motion for

           Summary Judgment.,_ Exh. 5, Deposition of Shawn McDougall, dated January 21, 2021, p. 51-55.

           Mr. McDougall stated in the affirmative that he does not possess personal knowledge regarding

           the machines Mr. Desiena may have been working with in the 1960s and early 1970s that would

           have been manufactured prior to the period of Mr. McDougall's familiarity with Heidelberg

           presses, other than the K-Line machines. Therefore, Mr. McDougall's opinion on the earlier

           printing presses at issue herein is primarily based upon company record information that

           defendant Heidelberg does not describe or include in the instant motion. See id. at p. 56, ln.15-

           57, ln. 9. The Court cannot evaluate any evidence that is not included, and a general denial

           without much more is insufficient to meet moving defendant's burden under Dyer.

                  In opposition, plaintiff highlights Mr. Desiena's clear and unequivocal testimony

           identifying Heidelberg printing presses at various worksites with numerous specifics. See

           Affirmation in Support of Plaintiffs Opposition, supra, Exh. 2, Deposition of Raymond Desiena,

           Volume III, dated February 28, 2019, p. 514, ln. 9-25. Defendant Heidelberg attempts to simplify

           Mr. Desiena's testimony as solely describing "dust" but Mr. Desiena clearly explained his

           extensive work experience, his familiarity with various printing press parts and the brands that

           manufactured them, where and why and how many times he encountered such parts while

           working specifically on Heidelberg presses, and why he believed that they contained asbestos.

           See id., Deposition of Raymond Desiena, Volume VIII, dated April 4, 2019, p. 1109-1111. ·

                   Defendant Heidelberg replies, re-emphasizing Mr. McDougall's affidavit, which has been

           . addressed above. See Defendant Heidelberg USA, Inc.'s Reply Memorandum of Law in Further

            190459/2018 DESIENA, RAYMOND vs. AERCO INTERNATIONAL INC.                            Page 4 of 6
            Motion No. 002

                                                          4 of 6
[* 4]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 190459/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 405                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/27/2023

           Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 2. Mr. McDougall's testimony was far from

           definitive. He confirmed multiple times at deposition that he had no knowledge of machines

           from the 1960s, and stated in fact, that defendant Heidelberg's corporate policy for document

           retention would not stretch back into the period of Mr. Desiena's exposure. See Affirmation in
                                                                   '
           Support of Plaintiff's Opposition, supra, Exh. 5, Deposition of Shawn McDougall, dated January

           21, 2021, p. 41-44 (describing personal experience); 61 (describing document retention policy).

           Defendant's reply further highlights the testimony of Robert Petkash, corporate representative

           for co-defendant in the instant matter, identified by Mr. Desiena as a manufacturer of asbestos-

           containing printing press brakes. See Defendant Heidelberg USA, Inc.'s Reply Memorandum of

           Law in Further Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 5. However, Mr. Petkash

           established not only that some Airflex parts as identified by Mr. Desiena contained asbestos, but

           also that direct sales were not the only way those parts were distributed to companies such as

           defendant Heidelberg. See Affirmation in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition, supra, Exh. 3,

           Deposition of Robert Petkash, dated February 23, 2021, p. 46-48 ("[i[t's possible" that Airflex

           brakes were used as replacement parts on several printing presses, including Heidelberg); p. 56-

           58 (confirming asbestos in certain Airflex brakes and describing packaging).

                  Defendant Heidelberg fails to establish their prima facie case, and plaintiff further

           presents clear. contradicting testimony.

                   Accordingly, it is

                   ORDERED that defendant Heidelberg'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

            190459/2018 DESIENA, RAYMOND vs. AERCO INTERNATIONAL INC.                            Page 5 of 6
            Motion No. 002

                                                         5 of 6
[* 5]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 190459/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 405                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/27/2023

           Decision/Order with notice of entry.

                   This constitutes the Decision/Order of the Court.

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

                                    ~
            CHECK ONE:                  CASE DISPOSED                   NON-FINAL mSPOSITION

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

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

            190459/2018 DESIENA, RAYMOND vs. AERCO INTERNATIONAL INC.                               Page 6 of 6
            Motion No. 002

                                                            6 of 6
[* 6]