Court Opinion

ID: 9916524
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 01:09:11.485022+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:31.781941
License: Public Domain

Desiena v Aerco Intl. Inc.
               2023 NY Slip Op 34541(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. 406                                                                        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. _ _ _00_4_ _
                                        -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
                                                                                        MOTION
            CARBORUNDUM COMPANY, INGERSOLL-RAND
            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
            SQUARED 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 004) 163, 164, 165, 166,
           167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178 ,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,
           188,189,190,191,195,197,198,199,200,201,202,203 ,204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,
           213,214,·216,217,236,273,275,289,290,291,293,294 , 301,302,305,306,307,308,375,383,384,
           385,386,387
            were read on this motion to/for                                 JUDGMENT - SUMMARY

            190459/2018 DESIENA, RAYMOND vs. AERCO INTERNATIONAL INC.                             Page 1 of 4
            Motion No. 004

                                                            1 of 4
[* 1]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 190459/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 406                                                                       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 L3Harris Technologies, Inc. ("Harris") moves for summary judgment to

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

           establish asbestos exposure from any Harris printing presses during his work as a printing press

           operator from the 1960s.:1980s. Moving defendant's motion relies primarily upon challenging

           Mr. Desiena's testimony which implicates defendant Harris's printing presses as utilizing

           asbestos-containing parts, specifically, friction brakes manufactured by Airflex. Defendant

           Harris additionally proffers the affidavit of their corporate representative to indicate that Harris

           sheet-fed printing presses did not utilize the breaks described by Mr. Desiena. See Notice of

           Motion, Exh. G, Affidavit of George V. Karosas, dated May 16, 2020.

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

           identifying Harris printing presses and his use of Airflex brakes with specifics, including

           varieties of Harris printing presses that were not sheet.,.fed, and not addressed by moving

           defendant's corporative representative. See Plaintiffs Supplemental Memorandum of Law in

           Opposition to Defendant L3Harris Technologies, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 2-3.

                   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 NewYork

            190459/2018 DESIENA, RAYMOND vs. AERCO INTERNATIONAL INC.                               Page 2 of 4
            Motion No. 004

                                                           2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 190459/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 406                                                                      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 JC. 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 (!51 Dep't 1995).

                  The appropriate standard at summary judgment for moving defendant Harris 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.

                                                                                                          ,,

            190459/2018 DESIENA, RAYMOND vs. AERCO INTERNATIONAL INC.                              Page 3 of 4
            Motion No. 004

                                                          3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 190459/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 406                                                                         RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/27/2023

                   Here, Mr. Karosas' affidavit does not definitively establish that Harris' products could

           not have contributed to Mr. Desiena's illness. In fact, Mr. Karosas states that he "first became

           aware of Harris presses in 1984", nearly two decades after Mr. Desiena's reported first exposure

           to asbestos through printing presses. Karosas Affidavit, supra, Jr 2. Moreover, Mr. Karosas'

           affidavit fails to address each type of Harris printing press Mr. Desiena could have been exposed

           to, and thus, has failed to meet moving defendant's heavy burden at summary judgment to

           unequivocally demonstrate its inability to have caused plaintiffs injury. See Reid, supra.

                   Furthermore, as conflicting evidence has been presented herein, and a reasonable juror

           could determine that Mr. Desiena was exposed to asbestos from his work with nm;nerous Harris

           printing presses in various work environments, and that such exposure could have contributed to

           his fatal illness, sufficient issues of fact exist to preclude summary judgment.

                   Accordingly, it is

                    ORDERED that defendant Harris' 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.

                    12/27/2023
                      DATE

                                     ~
            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

             190459/2018 DESIENA, RAYMOND vs. AERCO INTERNATIONAL INC.                             Page 4 of 4
             Motion No. 004

                                                             4 of 4
[* 4]