Court Opinion

ID: 9958691
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-09 20:09:11.351057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:38.026145
License: Public Domain

Stiglitz v A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co.
               2024 NY Slip Op 31149(U)
                      April 4, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 190029/2018
                   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. 190029/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

                           SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                     NEW YORK COUNTY
           PRESENT:       HON. ADAM SILVERA                                PART                             13
                                                                 Justice
                                                                 ------X   INDEX NO.         190029/2018
            MARILYN STIGLITZ,
                                                                           MOTION DATE        10/27/2023
                                              Plaintiff,
                                                                           MOTION SEQ. NO.       003
                                      - V -

            A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO, ALGOMA DOOR,
            INC, ALGOMA HARDWOODS, INC, AMCHEM
            PRODUCTS, INC.,AMERICAN BILTRITE INC, AN DAL
            CORPORATION, ARCONIC, INC, CBS CORPORATION,
            F/K/A VIACOM INC.,CERTAINTEED CORPORATION,
            CONWED CORPORATION, OAP, INC, EATON
            CORPORATION, AS SUCCESSOR -IN-INTEREST TO,
            GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, GOODYEAR CANADA,
            INC.,H.B. FULLER COMPANY, HOMASOTE COMPANY
            INC, HUBBELL INCORPORATED, AS SUCCESSOR IN,
            KARNAK CORPORATION, LEVITON MANUFACTURING
            CO., INC, MANNINGTON MILLS, INC, MARIO & DIBONO
            PLASTERING CO., INC, MORSE DIESEL, INC,
            NORTHROP-GRUMANN CORPORATION, OTIS
            ELEVATOR COMPANY, OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC, PFIZER,
            INC. (PFIZER), PUGET SOUND COMMERCE CENTER,
            INC, SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC USA, INC. FORMERLY
            KNOWN AS, SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO, THE B.F.
            GOODRICH COMPANY, THE GOODYEAR TIRE AND
            RUBBER COMPANY, TISHMAN REAL TY &                                DECISION + ORDER ON
            CONSTRUCTION CO., INC, TURNER CONSTRUCTION                              MOTION
            COMPANY, U.S. RUBBER COMPANY (UNIROYAL),
             UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, US PLYWOOD
             COMPANY, WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, WW HENRY
             CO, DOMCO PRODUCTS TEXAS, INC, NORTHROP
             GRUMMAN CORP., AS SUCCESSOR TO GEORGE A.
             FULLER COMPANY, AERCO INTERNATIONAL,
             INC.,BMCE INC. F/K/A UNITED CENTRIFUGAL PUMP,
             CARRIER CORPORATION, GOODWIN CONSTRUCTION
             SERVICES, GOULD PUMPS LLC,GRINNELL
             LLC,INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, INDIVIDUALLY
             AND AS SUCCESSOR TO CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL
             CORPORATION, AS SUCCESSOR TO UNITED STATES
             PLYWOOD CORPORATION, ITT LLC., INDIVIDUALLY
             AND AS SUCCESSOR TO BELL & GOSSETT AND AS
             SUCCESSOR TO KENNEDY VALVE MANUFACTURING
             CO., INC.,JENKINS BROS., PEERLESS INDUSTRIES,
             INC.,PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW
             JERSEY, R.P. BRENNAN, THE FAIRBANKS COMPANY,
             WEIL-MCLAIN, A DIVISION OF THE MARLEY-WYLAIN
             COMPANY, A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF THE

            190029/2018 STIGLITZ, LOUIS vs. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO                      Page 1 of 4
            Motion No. 003

                                                           1 of 4
[* 1]
                                                                                                  INDEX NO. 190029/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311                                                                     RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

            MARLEY COMPANY, LLC,

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

           The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 274, 275, 276, 277,
           278,279,280,281,282,283,284,285,286,287,288,289,298,299,300,301,302,303,305
           were read on this motion to/for                                 JUDGMENT - SUMMARY

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

          judgment seeking dismissal of this action, pursuant to CPLR §3212, is decided in accordance

           with the decision below.

                  Here, defendant Morse Diesel, Inc. ("Morse Diesel") filed the instant motion on the basis

           that no asbestos exposure attributable to Morse Diesel could have caused plaintiff-decedent

           Louis Stiglitz's ("Mr. Stiglitz") mesothelioma. Moving defendant submits expert testimony to

           establish that any of Mr. Stiglitz's asbestos exposure from working in the Pan Am Building (for

           which defendant Morse Diesel was the general contractor) was insufficient to cause his

           mesothelioma. See Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant Morse Diesel, Inc.' s Motion

           for Summary Judgment, p. 10-11. Moving defendant raises other issues for dismissal, including

           plaintiffs Labor Law 241 (6) claim, claim for punitive damages, claim for product liability, and

           loss of consortium, all of which are unopposed by plaintiff.

                   Plaintiff opposes on the basis that Mr. Sitglitz's work as a carpenter exposed him to

           asbestos in the proximity of Morse Diesel laborers or employees and offer conflicting expert

           testimony. See Affirmation in Opposition to Defendant Morse Diesel Inc.' s Motion for Summary

           Judgment, p. 3-9. Defendant replies, criticizing the expert opinions proffered by plaintiff.

                   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

            190029/2018 STIGLITZ, LOUIS vs. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO                         Page 2 of 4
            Motion No. 003

                                                           2 of 4
[* 2]
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 190029/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

           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". Winegradv 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 (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 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, affirmed this Court's decision in

            190029/2018 STIGLITZ, LOUIS vs. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO                         Page 3 of 4
            Motion No. 003

                                                           3 of 4
[* 3]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 190029/2018
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 311                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/05/2024

           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 has failed to affirmatively establish that exposure to asbestos at

           the Pan Am building as a result of Morse Diesel's work could not have contributed to Mr.

           Sitglitz's illness. Moreover, plaintiff has offered conflicting expert evidence as to the exposure

           and in reply, moving defendant largely points to gaps in plaintiff's proof. As such, plaintiff has

           raised sufficient issues of fact to preclude summary judgment and moving defendant has not met

           their burden as set forth by the Appellate Division in Reid and Dyer, supra.

                   As a reasonable juror could decide that asbestos exposure from Morse Diesel's Pan Am

           Building worksite was a contributing cause of Mr. Stiglitz's mesothelioma, sufficient issues of

           fact exist to preclude summary judgment.

                   This constitutes the Decision/Order of the Court.

                   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 defendants with a copy of

           this Decision/Order with notice of entry.

                   This constitutes the Decision/Order of the Court.

                    4/4/2024
                     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

            190029/2018 STIGLITZ, LOUIS vs. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO                            Page 4 of 4
            Motion No. 003

                                                             4 of 4
[* 4]