`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 240
`
`INDEX NO. 190065/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/18/2019
`
`STATE
`
`SUPREME
`
`OF NEW YORK
`COURT
`CHAMBERS
`COUNTY
`COURTHOUSE
`FULTON
`223 WEST MAIN
`
`JOHNSTOWN.
`
`STREET
`NY 12095
`
`RICHARD
`T. At'LISI
`.JL STICE
`
`TELEPHONE:
`FACSIMILE:
`
`(5I8)
`(518)
`
`736-5533
`762-1158
`
`February
`
`2016
`
`8,
`
`Blydenburgh,
`
`Esq.
`
`R.
`
`Donald
`
`Levy
`Attorneys
`
`LLP
`
`Konigsberg
`at Law
`Avenue
`NY 10022
`
`800
`Third
`New York.
`
`Radcliffe,
`
`Thomas
`& Elliston,
`at Law
`
`DeHay
`Attorneys
`
`Jr.,
`
`Esq.
`
`LLP
`
`36
`
`South
`
`Baltimore.
`
`Charles
`Street,
`MD 21201
`
`Suite
`
`#1300
`
`Erik
`
`C.
`
`DiMarco,
`
`Esq.
`
`Wilson
`
`Edelman
`
`Attorneys
`
`Moskowitz
`Elser
`& Dicker
`LLP
`at Law
`42"d
`
`150
`East
`New York,
`
`Street
`NY 10017
`
`Re:
`
`A.
`
`Katherine
`
`Chisholm,
`
`Individually
`
`and
`
`as Personal
`
`Representative
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Estate
`
`of Richard
`
`G.
`
`Schenectady
`Index
`
`#2012-1056,
`
`County
`
`Chisholm,
`Supreme
`
`Deceased,
`
`vs.
`
`R.T.
`
`Vanderbilt
`
`Company,
`
`Inc.
`
`Court
`
`RJI
`
`#46-1-13-0648
`
`Dear
`
`Counselors:
`
`Enclosed
`
`with
`
`regard
`
`herewith
`
`please
`
`find
`
`post-trial
`
`motions
`
`relative
`
`a copy
`the
`
`to
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Court's
`
`Decision
`
`and
`
`Order
`
`matter
`
`above
`
`referenced.
`
`I am,
`
`by
`
`a copy
`
`of
`
`this
`
`pending
`
`forwarding
`
`filing.
`CPLR
`
`It will
`
`§2220.
`
`the
`
`original
`
`Decision
`
`and
`
`Order
`
`to
`
`the
`
`office
`
`be Mr.
`
`DiMarco's
`
`obligation
`
`to
`
`determine
`
`of
`
`the
`
`the
`
`date
`
`Schenectady
`of
`
`entry
`
`Thank
`
`you.
`
`RTA/tb
`
`enc.
`
`cc:
`
`John
`
`J. Woodward,
`
`Clerk
`
`Very
`
`trul
`
`yours,
`
`RICHARD
`
`T.
`
`AULISI
`
`Justice
`
`to
`
`the
`
`letter,
`
`for
`
`County
`
`Clerk
`
`and
`
`to
`
`comply
`
`with
`
`yg
`
`2 2016
`
`t
`
`tswsomeeBERS
`
`uP
`
`
`
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/2019 05:07 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 240
`
`INDEX NO. 190065/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/18/2019
`
`OF NEW YORK
`STATE
`COURT
`SUPREME
`
`COUNTY
`
`OF SCHENECTADY
`
`ECElVE
`
`F E B
`
`1 2
`
`2016
`
`KONIGSBERG
`
`A. KATHERINE
`
`as Personal
`and
`RICHARD
`
`-vs-
`
`CHISHOLM,
`Representative
`
`Individually
`of
`
`the
`
`Estate
`
`of
`
`G. CHISHOLM,
`
`Deceased,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`DECISION
`
`AND ORDER
`
`Index
`
`#2012-1056
`
`RJI
`
`#46-1-13-0648
`
`R.T.
`
`VANDERBILT
`
`Individually
`Gouverneur
`
`and
`
`Talc
`
`COMPANY,
`successor
`
`in
`
`as
`
`INC.,
`
`interest
`
`to
`
`Company,
`
`Inc.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`The
`
`above
`
`asbestos
`
`action
`
`was
`
`commeñced
`
`on
`
`or
`
`about
`
`June
`
`the
`
`entitled
`
`4,
`
`2012,
`
`by
`
`filing
`
`of
`
`a Summons
`
`and
`
`Verified
`
`Complaint
`
`in
`
`the
`
`Schenectady
`
`County
`
`Clerk's
`
`Office.
`
`This
`
`action
`
`was
`
`granted
`
`a trial
`
`preference
`
`due
`
`to
`
`the
`
`plaintiff's
`
`(Richard
`
`G. Chisholm)
`
`deteriorating
`
`health
`
`condition
`
`caused
`
`by
`
`his
`
`mesothelioma.'
`
`A jury
`
`trial
`
`commenced
`
`on
`
`January
`
`22,
`
`2015,
`
`and
`
`concluded
`
`on
`
`2015,
`
`with
`
`the
`
`return
`
`of
`
`the
`
`jury's
`
`verdict.
`
`February
`
`10,
`
`The
`
`Special
`
`Verdict
`
`Sheet
`
`submitted
`
`to
`
`the
`
`jury
`
`contained
`
`six
`
`questions.
`
`The
`
`first
`
`three
`
`questions
`
`pertained
`
`to
`
`the
`
`liability
`
`of
`
`the
`
`only
`
`defendant,
`
`R.T.
`
`Vanderbilt
`
`Company,
`
`Inc.,
`
`(defendant).
`
`The
`
`last
`
`three
`
`questions
`
`pertained
`
`to
`
`the
`
`damages
`
`sustained
`
`by
`
`the
`
`plaintiffs.
`
`The
`
`found
`
`that:
`
`the
`
`decedent,
`
`Richard
`
`G.
`
`Chisholm,
`
`was
`
`exposed
`
`to
`
`jury
`
`ultimately
`
`1)
`
`asbestos
`
`from
`
`NYTAL
`
`100HR
`
`talc
`
`mined,
`
`sold
`
`or
`
`distributed
`
`by
`
`the
`
`defendant;
`
`the
`
`defendant
`
`2)
`
`was
`
`negligent
`
`in mining,
`
`selling
`
`and/or
`
`distributing
`
`NYTAL
`
`100HR
`
`talc
`
`without
`
`adequate
`
`warning;
`
`3)
`
`defendant's
`
`negligence
`
`was
`
`a substantial
`
`factor
`
`in
`
`causing
`
`Mr.
`
`Chisholm's
`
`¹Richard
`
`G. Chisholm
`
`passed
`
`away
`
`on August
`
`7,
`
`2012,
`
`as
`
`a result
`
`of
`
`his
`
`malignant
`
`mesothelioma.
`
`
`
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/2019 05:07 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 240
`
`INDEX NO. 190065/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/18/2019
`
`mesothelioma;
`
`that
`
`the
`
`4)
`
`monetary
`
`loss
`
`sustained
`
`by
`
`the
`
`decedent's
`
`wife
`
`was
`
`$2,135,000.00
`
`and
`
`each
`
`of
`
`the
`
`decedent's
`
`three
`
`children
`
`sustained
`
`a loss
`
`of
`
`$305,000.00;
`
`question
`
`5)
`
`five
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`the
`
`respective
`
`periods
`
`of
`
`time
`
`for
`
`which
`
`the
`
`jury
`
`had
`
`intended
`
`to
`
`provide
`
`compensation
`
`awarded
`
`in
`
`question
`
`"4";
`
`and
`
`the
`
`6)
`
`amount
`
`for
`
`pain
`
`and
`
`suffering
`
`incurred
`
`by
`
`the
`
`decedent
`
`from
`
`the
`
`date
`
`of
`
`his
`
`diagnosis
`
`to
`
`the
`
`date
`
`of
`
`his
`
`death
`
`was
`
`$7,500,000.00.
`
`pursuant
`
`and
`
`to
`
`have
`
`the
`
`The
`
`defendant
`
`seeks
`
`to
`
`set
`
`aside
`
`the
`
`jury's
`
`verdict
`
`to CPLR
`
`4404,
`
`Court
`
`grant
`
`judgment
`
`in
`
`its
`
`favor
`
`on
`
`the
`
`grounds
`
`that
`
`the
`
`plaintiffs'
`
`claims
`
`are
`
`time
`
`barred
`
`and
`
`that
`
`the
`
`plaintiffs
`
`failed
`
`to
`
`establish
`
`causation
`
`or,
`
`in
`
`the
`
`alternative,
`
`the
`
`defendant
`
`seeks
`
`a new
`
`trial
`
`because
`
`the
`
`amount
`
`of
`
`damages
`
`awarded
`
`by
`
`the
`
`jury
`
`deviates
`
`materially
`
`from
`
`what
`
`would
`
`be
`
`considered
`
`reasonable
`
`compensation.
`
`The
`
`plaintiffs
`
`have
`
`opposed
`
`the
`
`defendant's
`
`application
`
`and
`
`have
`
`cross
`
`pursuant
`
`for
`
`a new
`
`on
`
`the
`
`issue
`
`of
`
`punitive
`
`moved,
`
`to CPLR 4404,
`
`trial,
`
`solely
`
`damages
`
`as
`
`against
`
`the
`
`defendant.
`
`The
`
`Court
`
`will
`
`first
`
`consider
`
`the
`
`plaintiffs'
`
`motion
`
`for
`
`a new trial
`
`on
`
`the
`
`issue
`
`of
`
`punitive
`
`damages.
`
`This
`
`application
`
`was
`
`considered
`
`by
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`at
`
`the
`
`time
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Charge
`
`Conference.
`
`The
`
`plaintiffs
`
`had
`
`requested
`
`a charge
`
`on
`
`punitive
`
`damages
`
`and
`
`after
`
`hearing
`
`the
`
`arguments
`
`of
`
`counsel
`
`and
`
`considering
`
`the
`
`proof
`
`which
`
`was
`
`presented
`
`to
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`during
`
`the
`
`trial,
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`denied
`
`plaintiffs'
`
`request
`
`charge
`
`and
`
`question
`
`on
`
`the
`
`verdict
`
`sheet.
`
`A
`
`the
`
`for
`
`the
`
`a corresponding
`
`review
`
`of
`
`the
`
`record
`
`clearly
`
`indicates
`
`that
`
`there
`
`is
`
`insufficient
`
`proof
`
`in
`
`the
`
`record
`
`to
`
`support
`
`a
`
`claim
`
`of
`
`punitive
`
`damages,
`
`which
`
`requires
`
`a much
`
`higher
`
`standard
`
`of
`
`proof.
`
`Turning
`
`to
`
`the
`
`defendant's
`
`application,
`
`it
`
`seeks
`
`to
`
`essentially
`
`reargue
`
`the
`
`same
`
`motion
`
`that
`
`it made
`
`at
`
`the
`
`close
`
`of
`
`the
`
`proof.
`
`The
`
`defendant
`
`asserts
`
`that
`
`the
`
`plaintiffs'
`
`action
`
`is
`
`time
`
`barred
`
`as
`
`a matter
`
`of
`
`law,
`
`and
`
`that
`
`the
`
`verdict
`
`must
`
`be
`
`set
`
`aside.
`
`The
`
`defendant's
`
`argument
`
`is
`
`based
`
`
`
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/2019 05:07 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 240
`
`INDEX NO. 190065/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/18/2019
`
`primarily
`
`upon
`
`CPLR
`
`§202,
`
`and
`
`the
`
`Indiana
`
`Statute
`
`of
`
`Limitations
`
`Repose2
`
`and
`
`The
`
`statute
`
`of
`
`repose
`
`requires
`
`an
`
`action
`
`to
`
`be
`
`commenced
`
`within
`
`ten
`
`(10)
`
`years
`
`after
`
`the
`
`delivery
`
`of
`
`the
`
`product
`
`to
`
`the
`
`initial
`
`user.
`
`In
`
`this
`
`instance,
`
`the
`
`defendant
`
`claims
`
`that
`
`the
`
`plaintiff
`
`last
`
`used
`
`its
`
`tale
`
`when
`
`he was
`
`working
`
`at Maxfield
`
`Ceramics
`
`in
`
`1979,
`
`which
`
`is more
`
`than
`
`10
`
`years
`
`prior
`
`to
`
`the
`
`commencemeñt
`
`of
`
`within
`
`The
`
`defendant
`
`asserts
`
`that
`
`the
`
`plaintiffs'
`
`cause
`
`of
`
`the
`
`action.
`
`also
`
`action,
`
`if
`
`any,
`
`accrued
`
`in
`
`the
`
`state
`
`of
`
`Indiana,
`
`not
`
`in New York
`
`State.
`
`The
`
`record
`
`before
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`indicates
`
`that
`
`the
`
`deceased
`
`plaintiff
`
`was
`
`diagnosed
`
`with
`
`an
`
`asbestos
`
`related
`
`disease
`
`in
`
`July
`
`of
`
`2010,
`
`and
`
`that
`
`the
`
`injured
`
`plaintiff
`
`commenced
`
`the
`
`within
`
`action
`
`in
`
`June
`
`of
`
`2012.
`
`For
`
`purposes
`
`of
`
`the
`
`statute
`
`of
`
`limitations,
`
`the
`
`action
`
`was
`
`clearly
`
`timely
`
`commenced.
`
`Turning
`
`to
`
`the
`
`Indiana
`
`Statute
`
`of Repose,
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`previously
`
`ruled
`
`that
`
`the
`
`because
`
`of
`
`repose
`
`Indiana
`
`statute
`
`has
`
`no
`
`application
`
`to
`
`this
`
`action,
`
`statutes
`
`are
`
`generally
`
`considered
`
`matters
`
`of
`
`substantive
`
`law
`
`and CPLR
`
`§202
`
`applies
`
`to
`
`statutes
`
`of
`
`limitations
`
`which
`
`are
`
`procedural
`
`in
`
`nature.
`
`Thus
`
`statutes
`
`of
`
`repose
`
`(substantive
`
`matters)
`
`are
`
`subject
`
`to
`
`choice
`
`of
`
`law
`
`analysis.
`
`(Tances
`
`v Heidelberg_N
`
`Am Ine-
`
`93 N.Y.2d
`
`48,53[1999}).
`
`In
`
`the
`
`case
`
`at
`
`bar,
`
`the
`
`p oof
`
`established
`
`that
`
`the
`
`deceased
`
`plaintiff's
`
`entire
`
`period
`
`of
`
`exposure
`
`to
`
`asbestos
`
`containing
`
`materials
`
`occurred
`
`in Ohio,
`
`while
`
`he was
`
`working
`
`at Maxfield
`
`The
`
`manifested
`
`while
`
`he was
`
`The
`
`Ceramics.
`
`plaintiff's
`
`disease
`
`itself
`
`residing
`
`in
`
`Indiana.
`
`asbestos
`
`containing
`
`material
`
`(NYTAL
`
`100HR
`
`Talc)
`
`was mined,
`
`milled,
`
`manufactured
`
`and
`
`shipped
`
`from
`
`the
`
`state
`
`of New York.
`
`In
`
`light
`
`of
`
`the
`
`facts
`
`that
`
`were
`
`developed
`
`at
`
`trial,
`
`it
`
`is
`
`readily
`
`apparent
`
`that
`
`the
`
`third
`
`Neumeier
`
`rule3
`
`applies
`
`to
`
`the
`
`facts
`
`of
`
`the
`
`within
`
`matter.
`
`Pursuant
`
`to
`
`the
`
`third
`
`Neumeier
`
`rule,
`
`the
`
`law
`
`of
`
`the
`
`state
`
`where
`
`the
`
`accident
`
`occurred
`
`governs.
`
`In
`
`asbestos
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Indiana
`
`Code
`
`§ 34-20-3
`
`Neumeier
`
`v Kuehner,
`
`31 N.Y.
`
`2d
`
`121
`
`
`
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/2019 05:07 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 240
`
`INDEX NO. 190065/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/18/2019
`
`actions,
`
`the
`
`equivalent
`
`of
`
`the
`
`place
`
`of
`
`the
`
`accident
`
`is
`
`the
`
`location
`
`of
`
`the
`
`plaintiff's
`
`most
`
`regular
`
`and
`
`prolonged
`
`exposure
`
`to
`
`asbestos.
`
`The
`
`Court
`
`also
`
`notes
`
`that
`
`there
`
`is no
`
`significant
`
`difference
`
`in
`
`the
`
`substantive
`
`laws
`
`of Ohio
`
`and New York
`
`with
`
`regard
`
`to mesothelioma
`
`cases.
`
`Ordinarily
`
`a
`
`choice
`
`of
`
`law
`
`analysis
`
`is
`
`unnecessary
`
`when
`
`there
`
`is no
`
`relevant
`
`conflict
`
`between
`
`the
`
`exposure
`
`state
`
`and New York.
`
`(Tronlone
`
`v Lac
`
`d'Amiante
`
`Du Quebec.
`
`297
`
`A.D.
`
`2d
`
`528
`
`[1".
`
`Dept.
`
`2002]).
`
`The
`
`motion
`
`on
`
`of
`
`and
`
`statute
`
`of
`
`repose
`
`gmunds
`
`is
`
`once
`
`defendant's
`
`to
`
`dismiss
`
`statute
`
`limitations
`
`again
`
`denied
`
`in
`
`its
`
`entirety.
`
`The
`
`Court
`
`will
`
`now
`
`address
`
`the
`
`defendant's
`
`motion
`
`to
`
`set
`
`aside
`
`the
`
`jury's
`
`verdict.
`
`It
`
`is well
`
`settled
`
`that
`
`a jury
`
`verdict
`
`"may
`
`be
`
`set
`
`aside
`
`as
`
`being
`
`unsupported
`
`by
`
`legally
`
`sufficient
`
`evidence
`
`if
`
`there
`
`is
`
`simply
`
`no
`
`valid
`
`line
`
`of
`
`reasoning
`
`and
`
`permissible
`
`inferences
`
`which
`
`could
`
`possibly
`
`lead
`
`rational
`
`persons
`
`to
`
`the
`
`conclusion
`
`reached
`
`by
`
`the
`
`jury
`
`on
`
`the
`
`basis
`
`of
`
`the
`
`evidence
`
`presented
`
`at
`
`trial."
`
`(Revell
`
`124 AD 3d
`
`1010[3rd
`
`Dept.
`
`also
`
`see
`
`(Plumb
`
`v A.C.
`
`And
`
`v Guido.
`
`1006,
`
`2015]);
`
`S.,
`
`In_c.,
`
`305 AD 2d
`
`774,
`
`775[3rd
`
`Dept.
`
`2003]).
`
`"Further,
`
`a verdict
`
`may
`
`be
`
`set
`
`aside
`
`as
`
`against
`
`the
`
`weight
`
`of
`
`the
`
`evidence
`
`where
`
`the
`
`court
`
`determines
`
`that
`
`the
`
`evidence
`
`so
`
`preponderated
`
`in
`
`favor
`
`of
`
`the moving
`
`party
`
`that
`
`the
`
`verdict
`
`could
`
`not
`
`have
`
`been
`
`reached
`
`on
`
`any
`
`fair
`
`interpretation
`
`of
`
`the
`
`evidence"
`
`the
`
`jury
`
`could
`
`not
`
`have
`
`returned
`
`the
`
`verdict
`
`by
`
`any
`
`fair
`
`interpretation
`
`of
`
`the
`
`evidence.
`
`(Revell,
`
`supra
`
`at
`
`p.
`
`1010)
`
`A decision
`
`to
`
`set
`
`aside
`
`the
`
`verdict
`
`involves
`
`a review
`
`of many
`
`factors.
`
`The
`
`evidence
`
`ultimate
`
`question
`
`is whether
`
`any
`
`viable
`
`exists
`
`in
`
`the
`
`record
`
`to
`
`support
`
`the
`
`verdict.
`
`The
`
`defendant
`
`claims
`
`that
`
`the
`
`case
`
`should
`
`be
`
`dismissed
`
`because
`
`the
`
`plaintiffs
`
`failed
`
`to
`
`present
`
`adequate
`
`proof
`
`regarding
`
`causation.
`
`The
`
`defendant
`
`asserts
`
`that
`
`the
`
`plaintiffs
`
`failed
`
`to
`
`submit
`
`sufficient
`
`proof
`
`pursuant
`
`to
`
`Diel
`
`v Flintkote,
`
`204
`
`A.D.
`
`53
`
`[1"
`
`Dept.
`
`1994])
`
`and
`
`(Parker
`
`v
`
`Mobil
`
`Oil
`
`Corp.,
`
`7 N Y 3d
`
`800
`
`[2006]).
`
`A review
`
`of
`
`the
`
`testimony
`
`elicited
`
`plaintiffs'
`
`on
`
`behalf,
`
`along
`
`with
`
`the
`
`testimony
`
`elicited
`
`from
`
`plaintiffs'
`
`expert
`
`witnesses,
`
`Dr.
`
`James
`
`Webber,
`
`an
`
`
`
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/2019 05:07 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 240
`
`INDEX NO. 190065/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/18/2019
`
`environisental
`
`health
`
`scientist;
`
`Mr.
`
`Sean
`
`Fitzgerald,
`
`a geologist/mineralogist/asbestos
`
`analyst;
`
`and
`
`Dr.
`
`Jacqueline
`
`Moline,
`
`board
`
`certified
`
`in
`
`both
`
`occupational
`
`and
`
`internal
`
`medicine,
`
`establishes
`
`sufficient
`
`evidence
`
`in
`
`the
`
`record
`
`to
`
`find
`
`that
`
`the
`
`dust
`
`generated
`
`from
`
`the
`
`defendant's
`
`tale
`
`at Maxfield
`
`Ceramics
`
`contained
`
`enough
`
`asbestos
`
`to
`
`cause
`
`Richard
`
`G.
`
`Chisholm's
`
`mesothelioma
`
`and
`
`ultimate
`
`death.
`
`(Penn
`
`v Amchem
`
`Products,
`
`85 AD 3d
`
`475,
`
`476
`
`[1".
`
`Dept
`
`2011]);
`
`Qd_arshall
`
`v John
`
`Crane,
`
`Inc.,
`
`28 AD3d
`
`255[1st
`
`Dept
`
`2006]);(Lustenring
`
`[1"
`
`v AC & S,
`
`Inc.,
`
`[3d
`
`Dept.
`
`13 AD3d
`
`69
`
`Dept.
`
`2004]):
`
`(Jackson
`
`v Nutmeg
`
`Tech.,
`
`Inc.,
`
`43 AD 3d
`
`599
`
`2007]);(Johnson
`
`v Guthrie
`
`Medical
`
`Group,
`
`P.C..
`
`125 AD 3d
`
`1445
`
`[4*
`
`Dept.
`
`2015]).
`
`The
`
`defendant
`
`next
`
`argues
`
`that
`
`this
`
`Court
`
`improperly
`
`allowed
`
`the
`
`jury
`
`to
`
`hear
`
`prejudicial
`
`and
`
`inflammatory
`
`comments
`
`from
`
`plaintiffs'
`
`counsel.
`
`Noticeably
`
`absent
`
`from
`
`the
`
`application
`
`of
`
`the
`
`defendant
`
`is
`
`any
`
`reference
`
`to
`
`the
`
`record
`
`where
`
`it
`
`either
`
`raised
`
`a proper
`
`objection,
`
`requested
`
`a
`
`instruction
`
`or moved
`
`for
`
`a mistrial.
`
`For
`
`those
`
`instances
`
`where
`
`the
`
`defendant
`
`failed
`
`to
`
`curative
`
`protect
`
`the
`
`record,
`
`it
`
`is
`
`readily
`
`apparent
`
`that
`
`it
`
`did
`
`not
`
`preserve
`
`the
`
`objection.
`
`In
`
`those
`
`instances
`
`where
`
`an
`
`objection
`
`was
`
`properly
`
`raised
`
`and
`
`preserved,
`
`the
`
`defendant
`
`has
`
`not
`
`shown
`
`that
`
`the
`
`alleged
`
`error
`
`created
`
`a gross
`
`injustice
`
`to warrant
`
`a new trial.
`
`(Wilson
`
`v City
`
`of New York,65
`
`A.D.
`
`3d
`
`906,908-909
`
`[1"
`
`Dept.
`
`2009]);
`
`(Pçnn
`
`v Amchem
`
`Products,
`
`85 AD 3d
`
`475,
`
`477
`
`[15.
`
`Dept
`
`2011]).
`
`The
`
`defendant
`
`also
`
`seeks
`
`to
`
`set
`
`aside
`
`the
`
`jury's
`
`verdict
`
`on
`
`the
`
`grounds
`
`that
`
`the
`
`amounts
`
`awarded
`
`are
`
`excessive,
`
`and
`
`father
`
`seeks
`
`remittitur.
`
`The
`
`defendant
`
`seeks
`
`to
`
`reduce
`
`the
`
`award
`
`of
`
`$7,500,000.00
`
`for
`
`decedent's
`
`pain
`
`and
`
`suffering
`
`from
`
`the
`
`date
`
`of
`
`his
`
`diagnosis
`
`to
`
`the
`
`date
`
`of
`
`his
`
`death.
`
`"An
`
`award
`
`of
`
`damages
`
`for
`
`pain
`
`and
`
`suffering
`
`may
`
`be
`
`set
`
`aside
`
`on
`
`the
`
`grounds
`
`of
`
`excessive
`
`or
`
`inadequate,
`
`when
`
`it
`
`deviates
`
`materially
`
`from
`
`reasonable
`
`compensation
`
`for
`
`the
`
`injury
`
`sustained.
`
`(Vincent
`
`v Landi,
`
`123
`
`AD3d
`
`1183,
`
`1186[3rd
`
`Dept.
`
`2014],
`
`quoting
`
`Sherry
`
`v North
`
`
`
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/2019 05:07 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 240
`
`INDEX NO. 190065/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/18/2019
`
`Colonie
`
`Cent.
`
`School
`
`Dist.,
`
`39 AD3d
`
`986,
`
`990[3rd
`
`Dept.
`
`2007];
`
`s_er CPLR
`
`5501[c]).
`
`Determination
`
`of whether
`
`an
`
`award
`
`is
`
`adequate
`
`requires
`
`consideration
`
`of
`
`comparable
`
`cases
`
`and
`
`the
`
`nature,
`
`extent
`
`and
`
`permanency
`
`of
`
`the
`
`injuries,
`
`the
`
`extent
`
`of
`
`past,
`
`present
`
`and
`
`future
`
`pain
`
`and
`
`the
`
`long
`
`term
`
`effects
`
`of
`
`the
`
`injury."
`
`(Richards
`
`v Fairfield,
`
`AD3d
`
`[3rd
`
`Dept.
`
`4/2/15]);
`
`(Killon
`
`v Parrotta,
`
`125
`
`AD3d
`
`1220
`
`3"1 Dept.
`
`[
`
`2015]).
`
`The
`
`defendant
`
`asserts
`
`that
`
`the
`
`monetary
`
`award
`
`was
`
`excessive
`
`because
`
`it was
`
`based
`
`upon
`
`other
`
`factors,
`
`rather
`
`than
`
`from
`
`the
`
`evidence
`
`presented
`
`at
`
`trial.
`
`The
`
`defendant
`
`argues
`
`that
`
`the
`
`verdict
`
`is
`
`excessive
`
`when
`
`compared
`
`to
`
`other
`
`asbestos
`
`verdicts
`
`in mesothelioma
`
`cases.
`
`Most
`
`recent
`
`decisions
`
`which
`
`have
`
`discussed
`
`the
`
`amount
`
`of
`
`damages
`
`which
`
`have
`
`been
`
`incurred
`
`by
`
`plaintiffs
`
`suffering
`
`from
`
`mesothelioma
`
`have
`
`been
`
`in
`
`the
`
`context
`
`of
`
`rimittur.
`
`In
`
`(New
`
`York
`
`City
`
`Asbestos
`
`Litig.
`
`(Konstantin)
`
`(Dummit),
`
`121
`
`AD3d
`
`230
`
`[1S'
`
`Dept.
`
`2014])
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`approved
`
`sum of
`
`$8 million
`
`each
`
`million
`
`and
`
`$3.5
`
`and
`
`($5.5
`
`the
`
`total
`
`for
`
`plaintiff
`
`( $4.5
`
`million)
`
`million
`
`and
`
`$2.5
`
`million)
`
`respectively.
`
`In
`
`(Penn
`
`v Amchem
`
`Products,
`
`85 AD3d
`
`475
`
`[15t
`
`Dept.
`
`2011])
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`approved
`
`damages
`
`in
`
`the
`
`sum of
`
`$3.5
`
`million
`
`( $1.5
`
`million
`
`and
`
`$2 Million).
`
`In
`
`(Matter
`
`of New York
`
`Asbestos
`
`LitigIPride
`
`& Maver),
`
`28 AD 3d
`
`255[1st
`
`Dept.
`
`2006])
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`approved
`
`awards
`
`of
`
`$3 million
`
`and
`
`$4.5
`
`million.
`
`In
`
`the
`
`case
`
`at
`
`hand,
`
`the
`
`decedent
`
`was
`
`approximately
`
`52
`
`years
`
`of
`
`age
`
`when
`
`he
`
`died
`
`from
`
`mesothelioma
`
`on August
`
`diagnosed
`
`with
`
`the
`
`of
`
`2010.
`
`The
`
`2012.
`
`7,
`
`He had
`
`been
`
`disease
`
`in
`
`July
`
`plaintiffs
`
`claim
`
`that
`
`even
`
`though
`
`the
`
`decedent
`
`survived
`
`for
`
`almost
`
`two
`
`years
`
`following
`
`diagnosis,
`
`he
`
`actually
`
`suffered
`
`for
`
`an
`
`additional
`
`year
`
`prior
`
`to
`
`the
`
`actual
`
`diagnosis
`
`of
`
`his
`
`condition.
`
`In
`
`July
`
`of
`
`2010,
`
`the
`
`decedent
`
`underwent
`
`extensive
`
`exploratory
`
`surgery.
`
`During
`
`this
`
`surgery
`
`which
`
`resulted
`
`in
`
`his
`
`diagnosis,
`
`his
`
`left
`
`lung
`
`and
`
`pleura
`
`were
`
`removed
`
`and
`
`an
`
`extraplueral
`
`pneumonectomy
`
`was
`
`performed
`
`on Mr.
`
`Chisholm.
`
`As
`
`a result
`
`of
`
`the
`
`procedure,
`
`the
`
`decedent
`
`
`
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/18/2019 05:07 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 240
`
`INDEX NO. 190065/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/18/2019
`
`endured
`
`great
`
`pain
`
`and
`
`discomfort.
`
`Following
`
`the
`
`surgery
`
`and
`
`recovery,
`
`the
`
`decedent
`
`underwent
`
`four
`
`cycles
`
`of
`
`chemotherapy
`
`and
`
`later
`
`ten
`
`cycles
`
`of
`
`radiation.
`
`The
`
`chemotherapy
`
`and
`
`radiation
`
`caused
`
`the
`
`decedent
`
`additional
`
`pain
`
`and
`
`discomfort,
`
`commonly
`
`associated
`
`with
`
`these
`
`treatment
`
`regimens.
`
`The
`
`decedent
`
`received
`
`additional
`
`cycles
`
`of
`
`chemotherapy
`
`and
`
`underwent
`
`a
`
`thoracentesis
`
`to
`
`remove
`
`fluid
`
`from
`
`his
`
`chest
`
`area.
`
`As
`
`which
`
`damages
`
`stated
`
`previously
`
`the
`
`amount
`
`is
`
`awarded
`
`as
`
`for
`
`personal
`
`injuries
`
`is
`
`a
`
`factual
`
`question
`
`for
`
`the
`
`jury
`
`and
`
`a court
`
`may
`
`set
`
`aside
`
`such
`
`award
`
`as
`
`excessive
`
`only
`
`where
`
`it
`
`is
`
`found
`
`to
`
`deviate
`
`materially
`
`from
`
`what
`
`would
`
`be reasonable
`
`compensation.
`
`In
`
`the
`
`case
`
`at
`
`bar,
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`notes
`
`that
`
`the
`
`record
`
`is
`
`replete
`
`with
`
`evidence
`
`concerning
`
`the
`
`level
`
`and
`
`extent
`
`of
`
`the
`
`and
`
`which
`
`decedent's
`
`pain
`
`suffering,
`
`he
`
`incurred
`
`from
`
`prior
`
`to
`
`and
`
`following
`
`the
`
`date
`
`of
`
`his
`
`diagnosis
`
`until
`
`his
`
`death.
`
`In
`
`view
`
`of
`
`the
`
`above,
`
`it
`
`is
`
`ORDERED
`
`that
`
`the
`
`motion
`
`of
`
`the
`
`defendant
`
`to
`
`set
`
`aside
`
`the
`
`amount
`
`awarded
`
`by
`
`the
`
`jury
`
`for
`
`plaintiff's
`
`past
`
`pain
`
`and
`
`suffering
`
`is
`
`granted
`
`to
`
`the
`
`extent
`
`that
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`will
`
`vacate
`
`the
`
`award
`
`of
`
`for
`
`and
`
`on
`
`$7,500,000.00
`
`past
`
`pain
`
`and
`
`suffering
`
`order
`
`a new trial
`
`the
`
`issue
`
`of
`
`past
`
`pain
`
`and
`
`suffering
`
`unless
`
`the
`
`plaintiff,
`
`within
`
`30
`
`days
`
`of
`
`service
`
`of
`
`a copy
`
`of
`
`this
`
`Decision
`
`and
`
`Order
`
`with
`
`notice
`
`of
`
`entry,
`
`stipulates
`
`to
`
`decrease
`
`the
`
`award
`
`for
`
`past
`
`pain
`
`and
`
`suffering
`
`damages
`
`to
`
`$3,800,000.00.
`
`Signed
`
`this
`
`3 -
`
`day
`
`of
`
`2PNut
`
`, 2016,
`
`at
`
`Johnstown,
`
`New York.
`
`ENTER
`
`HON RI
`of
`
`Justice
`
`ARD T.
`Supreme
`
`the
`
`AULISI
`
`Court
`
`