Court Opinion

ID: 9942831
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-21 21:09:16.30739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:44.527033
License: Public Domain

Gonder v A.O. Smith Water Prods. Co.
               2024 NY Slip Op 30491(U)
                   February 14, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 190322/2019
                  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. 190322/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 583                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

                           SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                     NEW YORK COUNTY

           PRESENT:       HON. ADAM SILVERA                                PART                             13
                                                                Justice
                                                               --------X   INDEX NO.         19032212019
            BRYAN J GONDER,
                                                                           MOTION DATE           NIA
                                            Plaintiff,
                                                                           MOTION SEQ. NO.        008
                                     - V-

            A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO, ADH:NCE,
            INC.,FIK/A BMI, INC, AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS
            CORPORATION,       AS SUCCESSOR-BY-MERGER TO
            BUFFALO PUMPS, INC, AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC.,
            NIK/A RHONE POULENC AG COMPANY,           NIK/A BAYER
            CROPSCIENCE INC, AMERICAN BILTRITE INC,
            ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC, ATWOOD &
            MORRILL COMPANY, AURORA PUMP COMPANY, BMCE
            INC.,   FIK/A UNITED CENTRIFUGAL PUMP, BORDEN
            CHEMICAL, INC. P/K/A BORDEN, INC.       PIK/A THE
            BORDEN COMPANY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
            SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO SMITH-DOUGLASS
            CO., INC, BORGWARNER MORSE TEC LLC,BURNHAM,
            LLC, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS SUCCESSOR TO
            BURNHAM CORPORATION, BW/IP, INC. AND ITS
            WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES, CARRIER
            CORPORATION, CATERPILLAR, INC, CBS
            CORPORATION, F/K/A VIACOM INC., SUCCESSOR BY
            MERGER TO       CBS CORPORATION, F/K/A
            WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION,                               DECISION + ORDER ON
            CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, CLARK-RELIANCE                                MOTION
            CORPORATION, CLEAVER BROOKS COMPANY, INC,
            COURTER & COMPANY INCORPORATED, CRANE CO,
            CROSBY VALVE LLC,CUMMINS, INC, DOMCO
            PRODUCTS TEXAS, INC, EATON CORPORATION,
            INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR -IN-INTEREST
            TO CUTLER-HAMMER, INC, ECOLAIRE INCORPORATED,
            ECR INTERNATIONAL, CORP.,        F/K/A DUNKIRK
            BOILERS AND UTICA BOILER COMPANY, ELECTROLUX
            HOME PRODUCTS, INC.         INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS
            SUCCESSOR TO TAPPAN AND COPES-VULCAN,
            ELLIOTT COMPANY, EMPIRE-ACE INSULATION MFG.
            CORP, FEDERAL PUMP CORPORATION, FLOWSERVE
            US, INC. INDIVIDUALLY AND SUCCESSOR TO
            ROCKWELL MANUFACTURING            COMPANY, EDWARD
            VALVE, INC.,NORDSTROM VALVES, INC., EDWARD
            VOGT VALVE COMPANY, AND VOGT VALVE COMPANY,
            FMC CORPORATION,         ON BEHALF OF ITS FORMER
            CHICAGO PUMP         & NORTHERN PUMP BUSINESSES,
            FOSTER WHEELER, L.L.C, FULTON BOILER WORKS,
            INC, GARDNER DENVER, INC, GENERAL ELECTRIC

            190322/2019 GONDER, JOHN H vs. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO                       Page 1 of 6
            Motion No. 008

[* 1]                                                    1 of 6
                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 190322/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 583                                                                    RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

            COMPANY, GOODYEAR CANADA, INC, GOULD
            ELECTRONICS INC, GOULDS PUMPS LLC,GRINNELL
            LLC,HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., F/K/A ALLIED
            SIGNAL, INC. I BENDIX, IMO INDUSTRIES, INC,
            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, J.H. FRANCE
            REFRACTORIES COMPANY, JENKINS BROS, KARNAK
            CORPORATION, KEELER-DORR-OLIVER BOILER
            COMPANY, KOHLER CO, MADSEN & HOWELL, INC,
            MARIO & DI BONO PLASTERING CO., INC, MILTON ROY
            COMPANY, MORSE DIESEL, INC, NAVISTAR, INC.,NK/A
            INTERNATIONAL      TRUCK & ENGINE CORP. F/K/A
            INTERNATIONAL      HARVESTER, INC, NIBCO INC,
            O'CONNOR CONSTRUCTORS, INC., F/K/A THOMAS
            O'CONNOR & CONNOR & CO., INC, PEERLESS
            INDUSTRIES, INC, PEERLESS PUMP COMPANY, INC,
            PFIZER, INC. (PFIZER), RELIANCE ELECTRIC
            COMPANY, RHEEM MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
            RILEY POWER INC, ROBERTSHAW CONTROLS
            COMPANY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR TO
            FULTON SYLPHON COMPANY, ROCKWELL
            AUTOMATION, INC.,AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST
            TO ALLEN- BRADLEY COMPANY, LLC,SCHNEIDER
            ELECTRIC USA, INC. FORMERLY KNOWN AS
            SQUARED COMPANY, SEQUOIA VENTURES, INC.,
            F/K/A BECHTEL CORPORATION, SPIRAX SARCO, INC.
            INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR TO SARCO
            COMPANY, TACO, INC, THE GOODYEAR TIRE AND
            RUBBER COMPANY, TISHMAN LIQUIDATING CORP,
            TREADWELL CORPORATION, TYCO INTERNATIONAL
            (US) INC, U.S. RUBBER COMPANY (UNIROYAL), UNION
            CARBIDE CORPORATION, UNITED CONVEYOR
            CORPORATION, VELAN VALVE CORPORATION,
            WARREN PUMPS, LLC,WEIL-MCLAIN, A DIVISION OF
            THE MARLEY-WYLAIN COMPANY, A WHOLLY OWNED
            SUBSIDIARY OF THE MARLEY COMPANY,
            LLC,WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, ZY-TECH GLOBAL
            INDUSTRIES, INC, CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY
            OF NEW YORK, INC.,MINNESOTA MINING &
            MANUFACTURING COMPANY

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

           The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 008) 421, 422, 423, 424,
           425,426,427,428,429,430,431,432,433,434,492,493,494,495,496,497,498,499,500,501,502,
           503,504,505,506,507,508,509,510,511,512,513,514,515,516,517,518,519,538,539,540,560
           were read on this motion to/for                    SUMMARY JUDGMENT(AFTER JOINDER

            190322/2019 GONDER, JOHN H vs. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO                         Page 2 of 6
            Motion No. 008

                                                          2 of 6
[* 2]
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 190322/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 583                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

                   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 Jenkins Bros. ("Jenkins") moves for summary judgment to dismiss this

           action on the grounds that plaintiff-decedent, John Gonder ("Mr. Gonder") did not identify

           defendant Jenkins as a manufacturer of any asbestos-containing valves he was exposed to during

           the course of his work as a Con Ed inspector from the l 970s- l 990s. Moving defendant's motion

           rests entirely upon challenging plaintiff's evidence implicating defendant Jenkins as a

           manufacturer in Mr. Gander's asbestos exposure. Moving defendant further argues that

           plaintiff's expert reports are insufficient to establish causation. Plaintiff opposes on the basis of

           external depositions in which Jenkins valves have been identified at Con Ed powerhouses,

           including those that Mr. Gonder specifically worked at. See Affirmation in Opposition to

           Defendant Jenkins' Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 4-6. Plaintiff also argues that conflicting

           expert opinion should create issues of fact as to causation.

                  Defendant Jenkins replies, reiterating their argument that Mr. Gonder did not mention

           Jenkins and that the depositions should not be considered and do not include sufficient details

           connecting Mr. Gonder to Jenkins. Additionally, moving defendant reiterates that plaintiff's

           expert evidence is insufficient to establish causation.

                  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

            190322/2019 GONDER, JOHN H vs. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO                             Page 3 of 6
            Motion No. 008

                                                            3 of 6
[* 3]
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 190322/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 583                                                                      RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

           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 (1s t Dep't 1995).

                  The appropriate standard at summary judgment for moving defendant Jenkins 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.

            190322/2019 GONDER, JOHN H vs. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO                           Page4 of6
            Motion No. 008

[* 4]                                                      4 of 6
                                                                                                    INDEX NO. 190322/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 583                                                                       RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

                  Here, the Court notes that Mr. Gonder was deposed one year prior to his passing, in

           January 2020, at the age of eighty-five. See Affirmation in Opposition, supra, p. 1 (Mr. Gonder

           passed away in May 2021 from lung cancer at the age of eighty-six). Despite the extenuating

           circumstances, Mr. Gonder provided clear and unequivocal details regarding his work history

           from approximately forty-five years ago, including the locations of powerhouses he worked at,

           what his role was, and which specific categories of products he was exposed to. Id. at p. 2-4. 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 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." See also Affirmation in Opposition, supra, p. 7-11. Plaintiffs have met

           the standard set forth by the Appellate Division to sufficiently raise a question of fact. The

           weight of the evidence is an issue for the trier of fact, but for purposes of summary judgment, the

           depositions raise issues of fact.

            190322/2019 GONDER, JOHN H vs. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO                            Page 5 of 6
            Motion No. 008

[* 5]                                                      5 of 6
                                                                                                   INDEX NO. 190322/2019
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 583                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2024

                  Further, defendant Jenkins makes no attempt to meet their initial burden on a motion for

          summary judgment by proving that their products were not located at any of Mr. Gonder's

          worksites or that they did not contain asbestos. Thus, moving defendant has failed to "establish

          that its products could not have contributed to the causation of plaintiffs injury." Reid v

          Georgia-Pacific Corp., supra. Regarding causation, plaintiff has proffered a conflicting expert

          opinion regarding Mr. Gonder's exposure history sufficient to raise issues of fact regarding

          causation. See Affirmation in Opposition, supra, Exh. 2.

                  As conflicting evidence has been presented herein, and a reasonable juror could decide

          that Mr. Gonder was exposed to asbestos-containing valves manufactured by defendant Jenkins

          from his work at various Con Ed powerhouses, 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 Jenkins' 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.

                  02/14/2024
                    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

           190322/2019 GONDER, JOHN H vs. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO                            Page 6 of 6
           Motion No. 008

[* 6]                                                       6 of 6