FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2017 11:04 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 823
`
`
`INDEX NO. 190413/2013
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2017
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`COUNTY OF NEW YORK
`
`
`In Re: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION
`
`
`This Document Relates To:
`
`CLAUDIA DiSCALA, as Administrator of the Estate of
`JOAN ROBUSTO,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`-against-
`
`
`CHARLES B. CHRYSTAL COMPANY, INC., et al.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`Index No. 40000/1988
`
`
`
`
`Index No. 190413/2013
`
`
`
`
`
`[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Claudia DiScala, as Administrator of the Estate of Joan Robusto (“Plaintiff”),
`
`having settled and discontinued this action as against a defendant or defendants whose name(s)
`
`did not appear on the verdict sheet at trial, with the sum of all settlement amounts paid, or recited
`
`to be paid, by such defendant(s) to Plaintiff being Three Hundred and Fifty Thousand and 00/100
`
`Dollars ($350,000.00); and
`
`Plaintiff having settled and discontinued this action as against defendants The Proctor &
`
`Gamble Company (as successor-in-interest to The Shulton Group and/or Shulton Inc.)
`
`(“Shulton”) and Lorillard Tobacco Company (“Lorillard”), with the sum of all settlement
`
`amounts paid, or recited to be paid, by Shulton and Lorillard to Plaintiff, in the aggregate, being
`
`Two Million, One Hundred Thousand, and 00/100 Dollars ($2,100,000.00); and
`
`This Court having dismissed Plaintiff’s action as against Charles B. Chrystal Company,
`
`Inc., R.T. Vanderbilt Company, Incorporated, Wyeth Holdings Corporation (f/k/a American
`
`Cyanamid Company, individually and as successor-in-interest to Suzorite Mineral Products, Inc.,
`
`
`
`
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 823
`
`
`INDEX NO. 190413/2013
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2017
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`COUNTY OF NEW YORK
`
`
`In Re: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION
`
`
`This Document Relates To:
`
`CLAUDIA DiSCALA, as Administrator of the Estate of
`JOAN ROBUSTO,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`-against-
`
`
`CHARLES B. CHRYSTAL COMPANY, INC., et al.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`Index No. 40000/1988
`
`
`
`
`Index No. 190413/2013
`
`
`
`
`
`[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Claudia DiScala, as Administrator of the Estate of Joan Robusto (“Plaintiff”),
`
`having settled and discontinued this action as against a defendant or defendants whose name(s)
`
`did not appear on the verdict sheet at trial, with the sum of all settlement amounts paid, or recited
`
`to be paid, by such defendant(s) to Plaintiff being Three Hundred and Fifty Thousand and 00/100
`
`Dollars ($350,000.00); and
`
`Plaintiff having settled and discontinued this action as against defendants The Proctor &
`
`Gamble Company (as successor-in-interest to The Shulton Group and/or Shulton Inc.)
`
`(“Shulton”) and Lorillard Tobacco Company (“Lorillard”), with the sum of all settlement
`
`amounts paid, or recited to be paid, by Shulton and Lorillard to Plaintiff, in the aggregate, being
`
`Two Million, One Hundred Thousand, and 00/100 Dollars ($2,100,000.00); and
`
`This Court having dismissed Plaintiff’s action as against Charles B. Chrystal Company,
`
`Inc., R.T. Vanderbilt Company, Incorporated, Wyeth Holdings Corporation (f/k/a American
`
`Cyanamid Company, individually and as successor-in-interest to Suzorite Mineral Products, Inc.,
`
`
`
`
`
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2017 11:04 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 823
`
`
`INDEX NO. 190413/2013
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2017
`
`f/k/a Pioneer Talc Co., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wold Companies), Imerys Talc American,
`
`Inc. (individually and as successor-in-interest to Rio Tinto, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
`
`Luzenac, Inc.), Union Carbide Corporation, and Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. (collectively, the
`
`“Dismissed Defendants”) upon the Dismissed Defendants’ No-Opposition Summary Judgment
`
`Motions and the parties’ stipulations to discontinuance therefore; and
`
`This action having come on for trial against defendant Whittaker Clark & Daniels, Inc.
`
`(“WCD”) before the Honorable Martin Shulman, at a Term, Part 1 of this Court, in New York,
`
`New York, over thirteen days of trial, beginning October 23, 2015, and ending November 24,
`
`2015, and the issues having been tried before this Court, before a jury; and
`
`The jury having rendered a verdict in favor of Plaintiff and against WCD, and the jury
`
`having apportioned fifty percent (50%) of the fault to WCD, forty percent (40%) of the fault to
`
`Shulton, and ten percent (10%) of the fault to Lorillard; and
`
`The jury having rendered a total award of damages to Plaintiff in the amount of Seven
`
`Million and 00/100 Dollars ($7,000,000.00) (the “Verdict”); and
`
`This Court, upon the post-trial motion of WCD (motion sequence no. 24), having reduced
`
`the amount of the Verdict to Three Million, Five Hundred Thousand, and 00/100 Dollars
`
`($3,500,000.00) (the “Reduced Verdict”), by decision and order dated June 2, 2017, and entered
`
`in the Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, in and for the County
`
`of New York on June 19, 2017 (the “Decision and Order,” NYSCEF Doc. No. 806);
`
`UPON all pleadings and memoranda heretofore filed;
`
`UPON all proceedings, including thirteen days of trial, ending November 24, 2015;
`
`UPON the Decision and Order;
`
`NOW, on motion of E. Leo Milonas, attorney for WCD,
`
`2
`
`
`
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2017 11:04 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 823
`
`
`INDEX NO. 190413/2013
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2017
`
`IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that, pursuant to Section 15-108 of
`
`the New York General Obligations Law (“GOL § 15-108”), the Reduced Verdict be and is
`
`hereby further reduced by the amount of settlement monies recited or received from tortfeasors
`
`not appearing on the verdict sheet, totaling Three Hundred and Fifty Thousand and 00/100
`
`Dollars ($350,000.00), leaving a net verdict of Three Million, One Hundred and Fifty Thousand,
`
`and 00/100 Dollars ($3,150,000.00); and
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that, pursuant to GOL
`
`§ 15-108 and Section 1601 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, the aforesaid net
`
`verdict be and is hereby further reduced by the total amount of settlement monies recited or
`
`received from tortfeasors other than WCD appearing on the verdict sheet (to wit, Shulton and
`
`Lorillard), totaling Two Million, One Hundred Thousand, and 00/100 Dollars ($2,100,000.00)
`
`(that sum being greater than the equitable shares of the aforementioned net verdict of such
`
`settling tortfeasors), leaving a net verdict of One Million, Fifty Thousand, and 00/100 Dollars
`
`($1,050,000.000); and
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED
`
`that costs and
`
`disbursements are taxed in the sum of One Thousand, Three Hundred Fifty, and 00/100 Dollars
`
`($1,350.00), bringing the total net verdict to One Million, Fifty One Thousand, Three Hundred
`
`and Fifty, and 00/100 Dollars ($1,051,350.00) (the “Total Verdict”); and
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that post-verdict interest
`
`on the Total Verdict, pursuant to CPLR §§ 5002 and 5004, is awarded at the rate of nine percent
`
`(9%) per annum, not compounded, starting on November 24, 2015, in the amount of
`
`___________________ bringing the total award to ___________________________________
`
`3
`
`
`
`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/21/2017 11:04 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 823
`
`
`INDEX NO. 190413/2013
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2017
`
`Dollars as of ___________________________ (the “Judgment”), with interest to continue to
`
`accrue at nine percent (9%) per annum, not compounded, until the Judgment is paid.
`
`The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter this Judgment.
`
`Dated: _____________, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ENTER
`
`
`
`_________________________________
`
`
`J.S.C.
`
`4
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
