Court Opinion

ID: 9940676
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-14 21:09:47.235515+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:45:24.489282
License: Public Domain

D'Alessio v A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co
               2024 NY Slip Op 30439(U)
                    February 9, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 190176/2018
                  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. 190176/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 411                                                                    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.           190176/2018
            MATTHEW J D'ALESSIO,
                                                                           MOTION DATE              NIA
                                             Plaintiff,
                                                                           MOTION SEQ. NO.          004
                                      '-v-
            A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO, AMCHEM
            PRODUCTS, INC.,AMERICAN BILTRITE INC,
            BORGWARNER MORSE TEC LLC,BURNHAM, LLC,BW/IP,
            INC. AND ITS WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES,
            CARRIER CORPORATION, CERTAINTEED
            CORPORATION, CLEAVER BROOKS COMPANY, INC,
            DAP, INC.,FLOWSERVE US, INC.,FORD MOTOR
            COMPANY, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,
            GOODYEAR CANADA, INC, HONEYWELL
            INTERNATIONAL, INC.,ITT INDUSTRIES, INC.,J-M
                                                                               DECISION + ORDER ON
            MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.,MORSE DIESEL,
            INC, OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC, PEERLESS INDUSTRIES,                            MOTION
            INC, PFIZER, INC. (PFIZER), RHEEM MANUFACTURING
            COMPANY, THE B.F. GOODRICH COMPANY, THE
            GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY, TISHMAN
            LIQUIDATING CORP, TISHMAN REALTY &
            CONSTRUCTION CO., INC, TURNER CONSTRUCTION
            COMPANY, U.S. RUBBER COMPANY (UNIROYAL),
            UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, WEIL-MCLAIN, A
            DIVISION OF THE MARLEY-WYLAIN COMPANY,

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

           The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 243, 244, 245, 246,
           247,248,249,250,251,252,254,256,307,308,309,310,311,312,313,314,315,316
           were read on this motion to/for                    SUMMARY JUDGMENT(AFTER JOINDER

                  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 Morse Diesel, Inc. ("Morse Diesel") moves for summary judgment to

          dismiss this action on the grounds that plaintiff, Matthew D' Alessio ("Mr. D' Alessio") was an
                     I

          employee of defendant Morse Diesel during the time of his alleged asbestos exposure,

           190176/2018 D'ALESSIO, MATTHEW J vs. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO                    Page 1 of 5
           Motion No. 004

                                                          1 of 5
[* 1]
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 190176/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 411                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2024

          prohibiting his claims under New York State Worker's Compensation Law. Moving defendant

          highlights Mr. D 'Alessio' s deposition testimony in which he identified himself as defendant

          Morse Diesel's employee at ajobsite near Brooklyn Law School. Defendant also submits an

          affidavit from their corporate representative to establish that they carry workers' compensation

          msurance.

                 Plaintiff opposes on the basis of an additional affidavit in which Mr. D' Alessio clarifies

          that his Social Security records indicate that he was mistaken in his belief that he was a direct

          employee of Morse Diesel.

                 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

          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 v JC Duggan, Inc., 180 AD2d 579,

          580 (l51 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

           190176/2018 D'ALESSIO, MATTHEW J vs. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO                     Page 2 of 5
           Motion No. 004

[* 2]                                                    2 of 5
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 190176/2018
  NYSCEF DOC . NO. 411                                                                     RE CEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09 /2 024

           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 (1 st Dep't 1995).

                  The appropriate standard at summary judgment for moving defendant Morse Diesel 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 NYSlipOp 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, the Court notes that Mr. D' Alessio is a lung cancer patient in his 70s and was

           deposed at a time after his diagnosis with such illness. Despite these circumstances, Mr.

           D' Alessio provided clear and unequivocal details regarding his work history from approximately

           sixty years ago, including the locations of worksites, what his role was, and his specific sources

           of asbestos exposure. A misremembering of whether he was an employee or contracted by

           another entity at a specific worksite is insufficient to be dispositive of the issue in defendant's

           favor. The Appellate Division, First Department has affirmed denials of summary judgment in

           similar instances. In Koulermos v A.O. Smith Water Prods., 137 AD3d 575, 576 (1st Dep't

           2016), the court noted that defendant's "contention rested on evidence of plaintiffs inability to

           remember precisely when he worked at the facility" and stated that "pointing to gaps in an

            190176/2018 D'ALESSIO, MATTHEW J vs. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO                      Page 3 of 5
            Motion No. 004

[* 3]                                                      3 of   5
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 190176/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 411                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2024

          opponent's evidence is insufficient to demonstrate a movant's entitlement to summary

          judgment".

                    Moreover, the appellate court stated that the defendants affirmatively "failed to present

          evidence ... [regarding] when their employees were present at the facility and whether or not

          those employees used asbestos-containing products". Id. Similarly, the First Department noted in

          Krok v AERCTO International, Inc., et. al, 146 AD3d 700, 700 (1st Dep't 2017) that "reliance on

          the decedent's inability to identify its product as a source of his exposure to asbestos is

          misplaced" and that "plaintiffs raised an issue of fact by submitting evidence that defendant's

          asbestos-containing pumps were present on the ship to which the decedent was assigned as a

          boiler tender fireman." Plaintiffs have met the standard set forth by the Appellate Division to

          sufficiently raise a question of fact as to whether he was an employee of defendant Morse Diesel.

          The weight of the evidence is an issue for the trier of fact. For the purposes of summary

          judgment, plaintiffs affidavit dated Nov. 10, 2021 and Social Security records, which span the

          years of 1952 through 2016 with no mention of defendant Morse Diesel, raise issues of fact

          sufficient to deny summary judgment.

                    Further, defendant Morse Diesel makes no attempt to meet their initial burden on a

          motion for summary judgment by providing affirmative proof, such as employment records, of

          Mr. D' Alessio's status as an employee such that the workers' compensation defense would

          attach.

                    As defendant Morse Diesel fails to meet its burden, conflicting evidence has been

          presented herein, and a reasonable juror could decide that Mr. D' Alessio was exposed to

          asbestos-containing products from his work under moving defendant Morse Diesel as a non-

           190176/2018 D'ALESSIO, MATTHEW J vs. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO                      Page4 of 5
           Motion No. 004

[* 4]                                                      4 of 5
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 190176/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 411                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/09/2024

          employee, and that such exposure could have contributed to his lung cancer, sufficient issues of

          fact exist to preclude summary judgment.

                  Accordingly, it is

                  ORDERED that defendant Morse Diesel'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.

                  02/09/2024
                    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

           190176/2018 D'ALESSIO, MATTHEW J vs. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO                     Page 5 of 5
           Motion No. 004

[* 5]                                                       5 of 5