FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2018 10:43 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 558
`551
`NYSCEF
`NO.
`DOC.
`SUPREME
`
`COURT
`OF THE
`NEW YORK
`
`STATE
`COUNTY
`
`INDEX NO. 190415/2012
`190415/2012
`INDEX
`NO.
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2018
`12/14/2017
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`OF NEW YORK
`
`PRESENT:
`
`UprFFE
`
`~,
`~~
`
`~S
`
`~u~'a
`
`&
`
`~,
`
`~
`
`M/II
`
`e-g
`
`Justice
`
`- ~~
`
`V L
`
`The following
`of Motion/Order
`Notice
`
`papers,
`
`numbered
`
`1 to
`
`to Show Cause
`
`, were read on this motion
`- Affidavits
`- Exhibits
`
`to/for
`
`Answering
`
`Affidavits
`
`Replying
`
`Affidavits
`
`-
`
`Exhibits
`
`Upon
`
`the foregoing
`
`papers,
`
`it
`
`is ordered
`
`that
`
`this motion
`
`is
`
`PART
`
`I 2-
`
`INDEX NO.
`
`MOTION DATE
`
`MOTION SEQ. NO.
`
`| No(s).
`| No(s).
`( No(s).
`
`I+
`+ ACCNDecE
`III'
`AeaWNNsa
`
`WIN
`I eeea
`
`ua
`
`OI
`
`- O
`
`, J.S.C.
`FE
`
`BARBARAJAF
`U NON-FINAL
`D-GRANTED
`IN PART
`O SUBMIT
`APPOINTMENT
`
`O
`
`DISPOS
`ÒTHER
`
`ORDER
`O REFERENCE
`
`N2Qi
`
`o
`
`u
`
`0 u
`
`.1 Z
`tO I
`ui ~
`ro Q+
`ZI-
`I-
`O O
`:E u.
`
`OZ
`
`I
`
`Dated:
`
`) 2-
`
`(2-
`
`/ 7
`
`1. CHECK ONE:
`
`.....................................................................
`
`2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE:
`
`...........................MOTION
`
`3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:
`
`................................................
`
`ÓCASECASE DISPOSED
`IS: U GRANTED
`O SETTLE ORDER
`O DO NOT POST
`
`O DENIED
`
`O FIDUCIARY
`
`1 of
`
`14
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2018 10:43 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 558
`551
`NO.
`DOC.
`NYSCEF
`
`190415/2012
`NO.
`INDEX
`INDEX NO. 190415/2012
`12/14/2017
`NYSCEF:
`RECEIVED
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2018
`
`STATE
`OF THE
`COURT
`SUPREME
`OF NEW YORK
`COUNTY
`IAS
`:
`---------------------------------------------------------------------x
`In Re: NEW YORK CITY
`ASBESTOS
`---------------------------------------------------------------------x
`
`This
`
`Document
`
`Relates
`
`To:
`
`OF NEW YORK
`PART
`12
`
`LITIGATION
`
`x
`
`x
`
`BROWN,
`E. BROWN,
`
`as Administratrix
`and PHYLLIS
`
`the Estate
`of
`BROWN,
`
`of
`
`PHYLLIS
`HARRY
`Individually,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`-against-
`
`BELL
`
`& GOSSETT
`
`COMPANY,
`
`et al.,
`
`Index
`
`no.
`
`190415/12
`
`DECISION
`
`AND ORDER
`
`Defendants.
`____--___________----------------------------------------------------X
`BARBARA
`
`JSC:
`
`JAFFE,
`
`For plaintiffs:
`Esq.
`Alani Golanski,
`Weitz & Luxenberg,
`700 Broadway
`New York, NY 10003
`212-558-5500
`
`PC
`
`Esq.
`
`For defendant:
`P. Boyle,
`Edward
`Venable
`LLP
`the Americas
`of
`1270 Avenue
`New York, NY 10020
`212-307-5500
`
`At
`
`issue
`
`here
`
`is what
`
`percentage
`
`of
`
`liability
`
`should
`
`be allocated
`
`to defendant
`
`Consolidated
`
`Edison
`
`Company
`
`of New York
`
`(Con
`
`Edison)
`
`following
`
`a jury
`
`verdict
`
`finding
`
`it partially
`
`liable
`
`for
`
`death
`
`plaintiff's
`
`decedent
`
`whose
`
`death
`
`was
`
`caused
`
`from
`
`the
`
`of Harry
`
`Brown,
`
`proximately
`
`exposure
`
`to asbestos.
`
`The
`
`parties
`
`submit
`
`competing
`
`judgments.
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`In her
`
`complaint,
`
`plaintiff
`
`advanced
`
`a claim
`
`against
`
`Con
`
`Edison
`
`pursuant
`
`to Labor
`
`Law
`
`§ 200,
`
`and
`
`stated
`
`in her
`
`pleading
`
`that
`
`"having
`
`sustained
`
`a 'grave
`
`injury'
`
`as defined
`
`in Section
`
`11
`
`the.Workers'
`the
`
`of
`
`Compensation
`
`Law,
`
`the
`
`limitations
`
`on liability
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`in Article
`
`16, at CPLR
`
`1601(1),
`
`do not
`
`apply,
`
`by
`
`virtue
`
`of CPLR
`
`1602(4),
`
`to the
`
`extent
`
`of
`
`the
`
`equitable
`
`share
`
`of
`
`2
`
`of
`
`14
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2018 10:43 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 558
`NYSCEF
`551
`NO.
`DOC.
`
`INDEX NO. 190415/2012
`INDEX
`190415/2012
`NO.
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2018
`RECEIVE-D
`12/14/2017
`NYSCEF:
`
`plaintiff's
`
`employer,
`
`against
`
`whom plaintiff
`
`is barred
`
`from
`
`asserting
`
`a cause
`
`of action
`
`because
`
`of
`
`the
`
`applicability
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Workers'
`
`Compensation
`
`Law."
`
`(NYSCEF
`
`538).
`
`At
`
`trial,
`
`plaintiff
`
`proved
`
`that
`
`between
`
`1965
`
`and
`
`1966,
`
`Brown
`
`worked
`
`at Con
`
`Edison's
`
`Ravenswood
`
`powerhouse
`
`while
`
`employed
`
`by non-party
`
`Robert
`
`A. Keasbey
`
`Co.
`
`(Keasbey),
`
`and
`
`that
`
`between
`
`1959
`
`and
`
`1964,
`
`he worked
`
`for
`
`another
`
`entity,
`
`Asbestos
`
`Construction,
`
`and
`
`other
`
`exposed
`
`to asbestos-
`
`employers
`
`and
`
`at other
`
`worksites
`
`and
`
`other
`
`times
`
`where
`
`and when
`
`he was
`
`containing
`
`products
`
`manufactured
`
`by entities
`
`including
`
`Keasbey,
`
`for whom he also worked
`
`at
`
`other
`
`locations
`
`during
`
`the
`
`1970s.
`
`Based
`
`on these
`
`facts,
`
`Con
`
`Edison
`
`sought
`
`to include
`
`Keasbey
`
`on the
`
`verdict
`
`sheet
`
`as an
`
`article
`
`16 entity
`
`not
`
`only
`
`in its
`
`capacity
`
`as a manufacturer
`
`of asbestos-containing
`
`products
`
`but
`
`also
`
`as a contractor
`
`that
`
`employed
`
`workers
`
`who
`
`exposed
`
`Brown
`
`to asbestos
`
`while
`
`he worked
`
`when
`
`he was
`
`not
`
`had
`
`agreed
`
`nearby
`
`employed
`
`by Keasbey.
`
`As
`
`the
`
`parties
`
`already
`
`to list
`
`Keasbey
`
`on the
`
`verdict
`
`sheet
`
`as a manufacturer
`
`and
`
`given
`
`Con
`
`Edison's
`
`failure
`
`to raise
`
`the
`
`issue
`
`of
`
`Brown's
`
`so-called
`
`bystander
`
`exposure
`
`in a timely
`
`fashion,
`
`I denied
`
`its
`
`request.
`
`At
`
`no time
`
`did
`
`any
`
`party
`
`assert
`
`that
`
`the
`
`inclusion
`
`of Keasbey
`
`on the
`
`list
`
`of article
`
`16 entities
`
`as a manufacturer
`
`of
`
`asbestos-containing
`
`products
`
`was
`
`barred
`
`by
`
`the
`
`Workers'
`
`Compensation
`
`Law (WCL).
`
`Keasbey
`
`thus
`
`appears
`
`on the
`
`verdict
`
`sheet
`
`solely
`
`in its
`
`capacity
`
`as a manufacturer
`
`of an asbestos-
`
`containing
`
`product
`
`for
`
`the
`
`purpose
`
`of apportionment.
`
`The
`
`jury
`
`was
`
`duly
`
`instructed
`
`as to Con
`
`Edison's
`
`liability
`
`pursuant
`
`to Labor
`
`Law § 200,
`
`and
`
`on the
`
`verdict
`
`sheet,
`
`it answered
`
`the
`
`following
`
`questions
`
`in the
`
`affirmative:
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`was
`
`Brown
`
`exposed
`
`to asbestos
`
`at Con
`
`Edison's
`
`Ravenswood
`
`powerhouse?
`
`did Con
`
`Edison
`
`exercise
`
`supervision
`
`and
`
`control
`
`over
`
`workers
`
`at
`
`the
`
`powerhouse?
`
`Page
`
`2 of
`
`12
`
`3
`
`of
`
`14
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2018 10:43 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 558
`551
`NYSCEF
`NO.
`DOC.
`
`190415/2012
`NO.
`INDEX
`INDEX NO. 190415/2012
`
`12/14/2017
`NYSCEF:
`RECEIVED
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2018
`
`(3)
`
`(4)
`
`did Con
`
`reasonably
`
`Edison
`safe?
`
`fail
`
`to exercise
`
`reasonable
`
`care
`
`to make
`
`the
`
`powerhouse
`
`was Con
`
`reasonably
`
`Edison's
`safe
`
`failure
`a substantial
`
`to exercise
`
`contributing
`
`reasonable
`factor
`
`the
`to make
`care
`Brown's
`in causing
`
`powerhouse
`injuries?
`
`The
`
`jury
`
`was
`
`also
`
`duly
`
`instructed
`
`that
`
`the
`
`defendants
`
`bear
`
`the
`
`burden
`
`of proving
`
`that
`
`the
`
`article
`
`16 entities
`
`sold, manufactured
`
`and/or
`
`used
`
`defective
`
`products
`
`which
`
`were
`
`a substantial
`
`contributing
`
`factor
`
`in causing
`
`Brown's
`
`injury,
`
`and was
`
`asked
`
`to answer
`
`the
`
`following
`
`questions
`
`on the
`
`verdict
`
`sheet
`
`and move
`
`on to each
`
`subsequent
`
`question
`
`upon
`
`answering
`
`either
`
`"yes"
`
`or
`
`"no"
`
`to the
`
`prior
`
`question:
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`Was Brown
`in connection
`
`exposed
`with
`
`from
`to asbestos
`or equipment
`products
`
`products
`
`made,
`of
`
`sold,
`[article
`
`and/or
`distributed
`16 entities]?
`
`the
`
`used
`
`by any
`
`did
`
`If yes,
`adequate
`
`of
`
`the
`[entities]
`to Brown
`
`fail
`about
`
`to exercise
`hazards
`
`reasonable
`of asbestos?
`
`care
`
`by not
`
`providing
`
`an
`
`any
`warning
`
`(3)
`
`If yes, were
`contributing
`
`these
`factor
`
`failures
`[entities']
`in development
`
`to provide
`of Brown's
`
`an adequate
`mesothelioma?
`
`warning
`
`a substantial
`
`The
`
`jury
`
`was
`
`then
`
`duly
`
`directed
`
`to apportion
`
`liability
`
`among
`
`the
`
`defendants
`
`it
`
`found
`
`liable,
`
`including
`
`Con
`
`Edison
`
`and
`
`any
`
`non-party
`
`entities,
`
`including
`
`Keasbey,
`
`that
`
`it
`
`found
`
`liable.
`
`It
`
`found
`
`that Con
`
`Edison
`
`was
`
`30 percent
`
`liable,
`
`Keasbey
`
`35 percent
`
`liable,
`
`and
`
`two
`
`other
`
`entities
`
`were
`
`liable
`
`for
`
`the
`
`remaining
`
`35 percent.
`
`I
`
`Following
`
`an appeal
`
`on other
`
`grounds,
`
`plaintiff
`
`submitted
`
`a proposed
`
`judgment
`
`in which
`
`she asserts
`
`that
`
`in addition
`
`to its 30 percent
`
`liability,
`
`Con
`
`Edison
`
`should
`
`also
`
`be held
`
`liable
`
`for
`
`Keasbey's
`
`35 percent
`
`liability;
`
`Con
`
`Edison
`
`submitted
`
`a proposed
`
`counter-judgment
`
`which
`
`caps
`
`its
`
`liability
`
`at 30 percent.
`
`(NYSCEF
`
`537,
`
`542).
`
`Page
`
`3 of
`
`12
`
`4 of
`
`14
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2018 10:43 AM
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`551
`NO.
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 558
`
`INDEX NO. 190415/2012
`INDEX
`NO.
`190415/2012
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2018
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`12/14/2017
`
`II. APPLICABLE
`
`LAW
`
`r
`
`Pursuant
`
`to CPLR
`
`1601(1),
`
`other
`provision
`is determined
`liable
`.
`.
`
`any
`[n]otwithstanding
`claim
`for
`personal
`injury
`or more
`tortfeasors
`jointly
`or
`the
`total
`percent
`of
`less
`claimant
`defendant
`to the
`determined
`equitable
`share
`or contributing
`
`causing
`
`. and
`assigned
`liability
`for
`non-economic
`in accordance
`to the
`total
`
`liability
`
`of
`law,
`in favor
`the
`
`liability
`to all
`loss
`with
`for
`
`However,
`
`the
`
`limitations
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`in section
`
`1601
`
`do not
`
`a verdict
`when
`or decision
`in an action
`of a claimant
`of a defendant
`is found
`persons
`shall
`not
`the
`relative
`non-economic
`
`liable,
`exceed
`
`the
`that
`
`culpability
`loss
`
`in an action
`
`or
`two
`involving
`to be fifty
`such
`of
`liability
`defendant's
`of each
`
`person
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`against
`eleven
`against
`
`applicability
`subdivision
`restrict
`
`or
`
`a defendant
`workers'
`of
`the
`whom the
`of
`the
`shall
`
`be
`
`any
`
`theory
`
`of
`
`the
`under
`sustained
`has
`law to the
`extent
`is barred
`from
`compensation
`to create,
`which
`upon
`
`workers'
`
`to a claim
`law or
`compensation
`injury"
`in section
`as defined
`a "grave
`person
`share
`of any
`of
`the
`equitable
`of action
`a cause
`because
`the
`asserting
`law provided,
`in this
`impair,
`alter,
`limit,
`person
`
`of
`
`however,
`modify,
`be held
`
`that
`
`nothing
`enlarge,
`abrogate,
`liable.
`
`may
`
`any
`
`to claims
`apply
`claimant
`where
`compensation
`claimant
`workers'
`
`construed
`
`liability
`
`(CPLR
`
`1602[4]).
`
`Thus,
`
`the
`
`equitable
`
`share
`
`of a defendant
`
`for
`
`non-economic
`
`loss,
`
`even
`
`if
`
`its
`
`liability
`
`is
`
`found
`
`percent
`
`or
`
`is not
`
`reduced
`
`the
`
`relative
`
`of another
`
`or
`
`to be fifty
`
`less,
`
`by
`
`culpability
`
`defendant
`
`entity
`
`where
`
`a claim
`
`is made
`
`that
`
`a grave
`
`injury
`
`as defined
`
`in WCL
`
`§ 11 was
`
`sustained
`
`if
`
`that
`
`defendant
`
`or entity
`
`cannot
`
`be sued
`
`by
`
`virtue
`
`of
`
`the
`
`workers'
`
`compensation
`
`law.
`
`For
`
`a party
`
`to avoid
`
`a reduction
`
`of
`
`the
`
`liability
`
`of a defendant
`
`or entity
`
`under
`
`CPLR
`
`1602(4),
`
`it must
`
`both
`
`"allege
`
`and
`
`prove
`
`by a preponderance
`
`of
`
`the.evidence
`
`that
`
`one
`
`or more
`
`of
`
`the
`
`exemptions
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`in subdivision
`
`one
`
`of
`
`section
`
`sixteen
`
`hundred
`
`one
`
`or
`
`section
`
`sixteen
`
`hundred
`
`two
`
`applies."
`
`(CPLR
`
`1603).
`
`Page
`
`4 of
`
`12
`
`5 of
`
`14
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2018 10:43 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 558
`551
`NO.
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`
`190415/2012
`NO.
`INDÈX
`INDEX NO. 190415/2012
`12/14/2017
`NYSCEF:
`RECEIVED
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2018
`
`III.
`
`CONTENTIONS
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Plaintiff
`
`contends
`
`that
`
`as Keasbey
`
`was Brown's
`
`employer,
`
`she was
`
`absolutely
`
`barred
`
`from
`
`suing
`
`it and
`
`thus,
`
`Keasbey
`
`cannot
`
`be considered
`
`as a products
`
`manufacturer
`
`in order
`
`to exempt
`
`it
`
`from
`
`the
`
`workers'
`workers'
`
`compensation
`
`limitation.
`
`In other
`
`words,
`
`as plaintiff
`
`is barred
`
`by WCL
`
`§ 11
`
`from
`
`suing
`
`his
`
`employer
`
`Keasbey,
`
`Keasbey's
`
`share
`
`of
`
`liability
`
`must
`
`be transferred
`
`or apportioned
`
`Edison.
`
`(NYSCEF
`
`519).
`
`to Con
`
`B.
`
`Con
`
`Edison
`
`Con
`
`Edison
`
`argues
`
`that
`
`for Keasbey's
`
`share
`
`to be allocated
`
`to it, plaintiff
`
`must
`
`prove
`
`that
`
`Keasbey
`
`is liable
`
`for Brown's
`
`injuries
`
`in its
`
`capacity
`
`as his
`
`employer
`
`and
`
`through
`
`work
`
`he
`
`performed
`
`within
`
`the
`
`scope
`
`of his
`
`employment
`
`with
`
`it. On the
`
`verdict
`
`sheet,
`
`however,
`
`Keasbey
`
`is listed
`
`as a manufacturer
`
`of asbestos-containing
`
`products,
`
`not
`
`as Brown's
`
`employer,
`
`and
`
`the
`
`and
`
`its
`
`failure
`
`to
`
`questions
`
`posed
`
`to the jury
`
`relate
`
`solely
`
`to Keasbey's
`
`role
`
`as a manufacturer
`
`warn
`
`about
`
`its product.
`
`Moreover,
`
`Con
`
`Edison
`
`maintains,
`
`as Keasbey
`
`was
`
`a non-party,
`
`the
`
`only
`
`/
`
`reason
`
`for
`
`placing
`
`it on the
`
`verdict
`
`sheet
`
`was
`
`for
`
`an article
`
`16 set-off.
`
`It also
`
`contends
`
`that
`
`no
`
`issue
`
`was
`
`raised
`
`as to whether
`
`Keasbey
`
`operated
`
`in the
`
`dual
`
`capacity
`
`of manufacturer
`
`and
`
`employer
`
`as the jury
`
`questions
`
`relate
`
`to Keasbey's
`
`as a manufacturer
`
`and Brown's
`
`solely
`
`liability
`
`exposure
`
`to a Keasbey-manufactured
`
`product
`
`while
`
`employed
`
`by Asbestos
`
`Construction.
`
`In any
`
`event,
`
`Con
`
`Edison
`
`asserts
`
`that
`
`plaintiff
`
`waived
`
`the
`
`exception
`
`or
`
`limitation
`
`by
`
`failing
`
`to object
`
`to
`
`the jury
`
`charge
`
`and
`
`questions.
`
`(NYSCEF
`
`515).
`
`IV.
`
`PROCEDURAL
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`By
`
`stipulation
`
`so-ordered
`
`on June
`
`13, 2017,
`
`the
`
`parties
`
`agreed
`
`that
`
`a determination
`
`of
`
`the
`
`Page
`
`5 of
`
`12
`
`6
`
`of
`
`14
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2018 10:43 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 558
`551
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`NO.
`
`012
`190415/2
`NO.
`INDEX
`INDEX NO. 190415/2012
`12/14/2017
`NYSCEF:
`RECEIVED
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2018
`
`judgment
`
`be stayed
`
`pending
`
`an appeal
`
`taken
`
`by defendant
`
`to the Court
`
`of Appeals
`
`from
`
`the
`
`order
`
`of
`
`the Appellate
`
`Division.
`
`(NYSCEF
`
`531).
`
`By
`
`letter
`
`dated
`
`September
`
`15, 2017,
`
`plaintiff
`
`advised
`
`that
`
`the Court
`
`of Appeals
`
`had
`
`dismissed
`
`Con
`
`Edison's
`
`appeal
`
`and
`
`that
`
`the judgment
`
`was
`
`ripe
`
`for
`
`determination.
`
`(NYSCEF
`
`533).
`
`Oral
`
`argument
`
`was
`
`held
`
`on November
`
`15, 2017.
`
`(NYSCEF
`
`550).
`
`V.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Dual
`
`capacity
`
`Pursuant
`
`to
`
`Workers'
`
`Compensation
`
`Law
`
`against
`
`an employer
`
`by an
`
`(WCL)
`
`§ 11, a claim
`
`employee
`
`for
`
`an injury
`
`sustained
`
`when
`
`acting
`
`within
`
`the
`
`scope
`
`of his
`
`or her
`
`employment
`
`with
`
`the
`
`employer
`
`is barred.
`
`This
`
`statute
`
`is "designed
`
`to spread
`
`the
`
`risk
`
`of
`
`industrial
`
`accidents
`
`through
`
`the
`
`vehicle
`
`of
`
`insurance
`
`coverage
`
`and, more
`
`specifically,
`
`to 'provide
`
`a swift
`
`and
`
`sure
`
`source
`
`of
`
`benefits
`
`to the
`
`injury
`
`employee
`
`or
`
`to dependents
`
`of
`
`[a]
`
`deceased
`
`employee.'"
`
`(Billy
`
`v
`
`Consolidated
`
`Mach.
`
`Tool
`
`51 NY2d
`
`152,
`
`159
`
`[citation
`
`omitted]).
`
`In exchange
`
`for
`
`Corp.,
`
`[1980]
`
`the
`
`payment
`
`of a fixed
`
`benefit
`
`without
`
`the
`
`need
`
`for
`
`"expensive
`
`and
`
`sometimes
`
`litigation,"
`
`risky
`
`the
`
`employee
`
`gives
`
`up his
`
`or her
`
`common
`
`law right
`
`to sue the
`
`employer
`
`in tort.
`
`(Id.).
`
`Here,
`
`it
`
`is not
`
`disputed
`
`that
`
`on the
`
`verdict
`
`sheet
`
`and
`
`in the jury
`
`charge,
`
`Keasbey
`
`is listed
`
`in the
`
`sole
`
`capacity
`
`of a manufacturer
`
`or user
`
`of asbestos-containing
`
`products,
`
`and
`
`that
`
`the jury
`
`held
`
`it
`
`liable
`
`for
`
`failing
`
`to warn
`
`Brown
`
`about
`
`its products.
`
`Nor
`
`is it disputed
`
`that
`
`pursuant
`
`to
`
`WCL § 11, no question
`
`was
`
`asked
`
`or
`
`finding
`
`made
`
`as to whether
`
`Keasbey
`
`should
`
`be held
`
`liable
`
`as Brown's
`
`employer
`
`for
`
`injuries
`
`sustained
`
`by him within
`
`the
`
`scope
`
`of his
`
`employment
`
`with
`
`Keasbey,
`
`whether
`
`as a premises
`
`owner
`
`or
`
`the manufacturer
`
`of defective
`
`equipment.
`
`In Billy,
`
`supra,
`
`the Court
`
`held
`
`that
`
`the
`
`limitation
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`in WCL
`
`§ 11 applies
`
`where
`
`a
`
`defendant
`
`is sued
`
`both
`
`as the
`
`employer
`
`of
`
`the
`
`injured
`
`employee
`
`and
`
`as either
`
`a.participant
`
`in the
`
`Page
`
`6 of
`
`12
`
`7
`
`of
`
`14
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2018 10:43 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 558
`NYSCEF
`551
`DOC.
`NO.
`
`190415/2012
`INDEX NO. 190415/2012
`INDEX
`NO.
`
`12/14/2017
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2018
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`
`manufacture
`
`and
`
`design
`
`of
`
`the
`
`equipment
`
`which
`
`allegedly
`
`injured
`
`the
`
`employee
`
`or as a premises
`
`owner
`
`where
`
`the
`
`accident
`
`occurred.
`
`The Court
`
`observed
`
`that
`
`it
`
`is
`
`"unsound"
`
`to permit
`
`common-
`
`law actions
`
`against
`
`employers
`
`in their
`
`capacities
`
`as employers
`
`and
`
`as property
`
`owners
`
`or
`
`manufacturers
`
`(51 NY2d
`
`at 159),
`
`reasoning
`
`that
`
`the
`
`expectation
`
`that
`
`an employer
`
`provide
`
`a safe
`
`workplace
`
`"cannot
`
`be separated
`
`in a logical
`
`and
`
`fashion"
`
`orderly
`
`from
`
`its duties
`
`as a premises
`
`owner
`
`within
`
`all
`
`of
`
`the
`
`or manufacturer
`
`of equipment,
`
`and
`
`that
`
`such
`
`duties
`
`are subsumed
`
`obligations
`
`arising
`
`from
`
`the
`
`employee-employer
`
`I
`relationship.
`
`(Id.
`
`at 160).
`
`It explained
`
`that
`
`"the
`
`salutary
`
`social
`
`purposes
`
`underlying
`
`the
`
`existing
`
`workers'
`workers'
`
`compensation
`
`scheme"
`
`would
`
`be
`
`"undermin[ed]"
`
`distinctions."
`
`if
`
`recovery
`
`outside
`
`that
`
`scheme
`
`were
`
`permitted
`
`based
`
`on "such
`
`illusory
`
`(Id.).
`
`Thus,
`
`per Billy,
`
`if a party
`
`is sued
`
`in its
`
`capacity
`
`as the
`
`plaintiff's
`
`employer
`
`and
`
`as the
`
`owner
`
`of
`
`the
`
`premises
`
`where
`
`the
`
`plaintiff
`
`worked
`
`or as the manufacturer
`
`of equipment
`
`which
`
`injured
`
`the
`
`plaintiff,
`
`the
`
`Workers'
`
`Compensation
`
`Law bars
`
`direct
`
`liability
`
`against
`
`the
`
`employer.
`
`(See Ross
`
`v Nestle
`
`Prepared
`
`Foods
`
`Co.,
`
`Inc.,
`
`21 AD3d
`
`1329
`
`[4th
`
`Dept
`
`2005],
`
`lv
`
`dismissed
`
`6 NY3d
`
`751
`
`[employee
`
`cannot
`
`sue employer
`
`in its dual
`
`capacity
`
`as employer
`
`and
`
`as
`
`designer
`
`of machine
`
`that
`
`injured
`
`him while
`
`working
`
`for
`
`employer]).
`
`Here,
`
`however,
`
`Keasbey
`
`was
`
`held
`
`liable
`
`in its
`
`capacity
`
`as a manufacturer
`
`asbestos-
`
`of
`
`products,
`
`not
`
`as a manufacturer
`
`of equipment
`
`used
`
`by Brown
`
`in his
`
`employment
`
`for
`
`containing
`
`Keasbey,
`
`and
`
`the jury
`
`found
`
`that
`
`the
`
`duty
`
`violated
`
`by Keasbey
`
`was
`
`not
`
`that
`
`owed
`
`by
`
`the
`
`employer
`
`to the
`
`employee
`
`but
`
`that
`
`owed
`
`by a product
`
`manufacturer
`
`to warn
`
`a product
`
`user.
`
`Thus,
`
`the
`
`distinction
`
`between
`
`Keasbey's
`
`status
`
`as Brown's
`
`employer
`
`and
`
`its
`
`status
`
`as the manufacturer
`
`of
`
`an asbestos-containing
`
`product
`
`is real,
`
`not
`
`illusory,
`
`and
`
`does
`
`not
`
`implicate
`
`the
`
`salutary
`
`policy
`
`underlying
`
`Workers'
`
`the
`
`Compensation
`
`Law.
`
`Page
`
`7 of
`
`12
`
`8
`
`of
`
`14
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2018 10:43 AM
`11:44 W RECEI
`COUNTV-
`NEW 5YORK
`NiF@Elit.
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 558
`COUNTY
`CLERK
`09/19/2017
`DOC.
`NYSCEF
`NO.
`542
`
`INDEX NO. 190415/2012
`190415/2012
`INDEX
`NO.
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2018
`I9NP$479177
`09/19/2017
`NYSCEF:
`RECEIVED
`
`OF THE STATE
`COURT
`SUPREME
`OF NEW YORK
`COUNTY
`-_______________-___----__-_-__
`In Re: NEW YORK CITY
`
`ASBESTOS
`
`OF NEW YORK
`
`_ _____-_______-
`
`LITIGATION
`
`This
`
`Document
`
`Relates
`
`To:
`
`PHYLLIS
`OF HARRY
`Individually,
`
`as Administratrix
`BROWN,
`and PHYLLIS
`E. BROWN,
`
`of
`
`the ESTATE
`BROWN,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`-against-
`against—
`
`Index
`
`No.
`
`190415/12
`
`Hon.
`
`Barbara
`
`Jaffe
`
`and
`
`as Successor
`
`to
`
`successor
`
`COUNTER
`JUDGMENT
`
`PROPOSED
`
`OF NEW
`
`& GOSSETT
`BELL
`COMPANY,
`BURNHAM,
`Individually,
`LLC,
`BURNHAM
`CORPORATION,
`CARRIER
`CORPORATION,
`f/k/a VIACOM
`CBS CORPORATION,
`INC.,
`to CBS CORPORATION,
`f/k/a
`by merger
`WESTINGHOUSE
`ELECTRIC
`CORPORATION,
`BROOKS
`CLEAVER
`COMPANY,
`INC.,
`COMPANY
`CONSOLIDATED
`EDISON
`YORK,
`INC.,
`COURTER
`CRANE
`Former
`
`of
`
`its
`
`& COMPANY,
`INCORPORATED,
`FMC CORPORATION,
`on behalf
`CO.,
`PUMP & NORTHERN
`PUMP
`CHICAGO
`FOSTER WHEELER,
`L.L.C.,
`BUSINESSES,
`GOULDS
`GENERAL
`ELECTRIC
`COMPANY,
`INGERSOLL-RAND
`COMPANY,
`PUMPS,
`INC.,
`GENERATION
`LONG
`KEYSPAN
`f/lda
`LLC,
`&
`MARIO
`POWER
`ISLAND
`AUTHORITY,
`INC., OWENS-
`DiBONO
`PLASTERING
`CO.,
`PEERLESS
`INC.,
`INC.,
`INDUSTRIES,
`ILLINOIS,
`of NEW YORK AND NEW
`PORT AUTHORITY
`REALTY
`TISHMAN
`POWER
`RILEY
`INC.,
`JERSEY,
`& CONSTRUCTION
`TRANE
`-U.S.
`INC.,
`CO,
`INC.,
`TREADWELL
`AMERICAN
`STANDARD
`f/k/a
`INC.,
`CARBIDE
`UNION
`CORPORATION,
`CONVEYOR
`UNITED
`CORPORATION,
`WARREN
`CORPORATION,
`PUMPS,
`of The Marley-Wylain
`a Division
`McLAIN,
`of The Marley
`Owned
`a Wholly
`Subsidiary
`YARWAY
`CORPORATION,
`LLC,
`
`LLC, WEIL-
`Company,
`Company,
`
`Defendants.
`----------------------------------..---------------------------------------------------------------
`
`9
`
`of
`
`14
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2018 10:43 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 558
`NYSCEF
`551
`NO.
`DOC.
`
`INDEX NO. 190415/2012
`INDEX
`190415/2012
`NO.
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2018
`RECEIVED
`12/14/2017
`NYSCEF:
`
`Moreover,
`
`Brown
`
`was
`
`proven
`
`to have
`
`been
`
`exposed
`
`to the Keasbey
`
`products
`
`at
`
`issue
`
`while
`
`he was
`
`employed
`
`by another
`
`entity
`
`several
`
`years
`
`before
`
`he had
`
`begun
`
`working
`
`for
`
`Keasbey.
`
`To hold
`
`that
`
`Keasbey's
`
`article
`
`16 liability
`
`is precluded
`
`because
`
`Brown
`
`worked
`
`for
`
`it after
`
`he was
`
`exposed
`
`to its products
`
`does
`
`not
`
`advance
`
`that
`
`salutary
`
`policy.
`
`(Id).
`
`Thus,
`
`in Gonzales
`
`v Armac
`
`Indus.,
`
`Ltd,
`
`the Court
`
`acknowledged
`
`such
`
`an exception
`
`to WCL
`
`§ 11 as "avoid[ing]
`
`inequity
`
`to a
`
`defendant
`
`left with
`
`the
`
`total
`
`bill
`
`for
`
`the
`
`other
`
`tortfeasor
`
`was
`
`the
`
`plaintiff's
`
`employer
`
`and
`
`therefore
`
`immune
`
`from
`
`direct
`
`suit."
`
`(81
`
`a plaintiff's
`
`injuries
`
`because
`
`of
`
`the mere
`
`happenstance
`
`that
`
`NY2d
`
`1, 8 [1993]).
`
`Similar
`
`reasoning
`
`was
`
`employed
`
`by
`
`the Court
`
`in Firestein
`
`v Kingsbrook
`
`Jewish
`
`Med
`
`Ctr.,
`
`wherein
`
`it was
`
`held
`
`that
`
`the
`
`plaintiff
`
`was
`
`not
`
`barred
`
`from
`
`seeking
`
`damages
`
`for medical
`
`malpractice
`
`even
`
`though
`
`she was
`
`employed
`
`at
`
`the
`
`hospital
`
`where
`
`the malpractice
`
`occurred,
`
`as her
`
`injuries
`
`occur
`
`the
`
`course
`
`of her
`
`employment
`
`with
`
`the
`
`and
`
`the
`
`alleged
`
`malpractice
`
`did
`
`not
`
`during
`
`hospital,
`
`notwithstanding
`
`that
`
`her
`
`injury
`
`and
`
`her
`
`employment
`
`relationship
`
`coincided.
`
`The Court
`
`construed
`
`the
`
`so-called
`
`"dual
`
`capacity"
`
`doctrine
`
`as set
`
`forth
`
`in Billy
`
`as follows:
`
`"an
`
`employee
`
`who
`
`is injured
`
`during
`
`the
`
`course
`
`of his
`
`employment
`
`may
`
`sue his
`
`employer
`
`for money
`
`damages
`
`if
`
`the
`
`employer
`
`'occupies
`
`a second
`
`capacity
`
`that
`
`confers
`
`on him obligations
`
`independent
`
`of
`
`those
`
`imposed
`
`on him as
`
`employer'"
`
`(137
`
`AD2d
`
`40
`
`[2d Dept
`
`1988]).
`
`Thus,
`
`the Court
`
`held
`
`that
`
`the
`
`34,
`
`"fundamental
`
`distinction"
`
`between
`
`the
`
`case
`
`before
`
`it and Billy
`
`is that
`
`"the
`
`injuries
`
`for which
`
`[the
`
`plaintiff]
`
`employment."
`
`seeks
`
`compensation
`
`in a court
`
`of
`
`law did
`
`not
`
`occur
`
`within
`
`the
`
`scope
`
`of her
`
`(Id
`
`at 40 ; see Matias
`
`v City
`
`of New York,
`
`127 AD3d
`
`1145
`
`[2d Dept
`
`2015]
`
`[plaintiff
`
`could
`
`not
`
`only
`
`recover
`
`workers'
`
`compensation
`
`benefits
`
`for
`
`his
`
`on-job
`
`injury,
`
`but
`
`could
`
`also
`
`sue employer
`
`to recover
`
`damages
`
`caused
`
`by
`
`separate
`
`injuries
`
`that
`
`occurred
`
`outside
`
`scope
`
`of
`
`Page
`
`8 of
`
`12
`
`10
`
`of
`
`14
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2018 10:43 AM
`NYSCEF
`551
`DOC.
`NO.
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 558
`
`INDEX NO. 190415/2012
`INDEX
`NO.
`190415/2012
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2018
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`12/14/2017
`
`his
`
`employment.]).
`
`None
`
`of
`
`the
`
`cases
`
`cited
`
`by plaintiff
`
`addresses
`
`the
`
`issue
`
`of whether
`
`an employer
`
`may
`
`be
`
`sued
`
`as a product
`
`manufacturer
`
`with
`
`a duty
`
`to provide
`
`a safe
`
`product
`
`or adequate
`
`warnings
`
`for
`
`injuries
`
`sustained
`
`before
`
`the
`
`employment
`
`relationship
`
`began.
`
`Nor
`
`has
`
`plaintiff
`
`established
`
`that
`
`there
`
`is an absolute
`
`bar
`
`against
`
`suing
`
`an employer
`
`in a dual
`
`capacity.
`
`If
`
`it
`
`is plaintiff's
`
`position
`
`that
`
`virtue
`
`of
`
`its non-coincident
`
`employment
`
`with
`
`should
`
`not
`
`Keasbey,
`
`by
`
`relationship
`
`Brown,
`
`have
`
`appeared
`
`on the
`
`verdict
`
`sheet,
`
`she failed
`
`to register
`
`an objection
`
`which
`
`is not
`
`cured
`
`by
`
`having
`
`raised
`
`it
`
`in her
`
`complaint.
`
`B.
`
`Ability
`
`to bring
`
`direct
`
`claim
`
`against
`
`Keasbey
`
`Plaintiff
`
`now
`
`advances
`
`as an additional
`
`bar
`
`to the
`
`inclusion
`
`of Keasbey
`
`as an article
`
`16
`
`entity, WCL
`
`§ 44, which
`
`provides
`
`that
`
`the
`
`total
`
`compensation
`
`due
`
`an injured
`
`employee
`
`is
`
`recoverable
`
`from
`
`the
`
`employer
`
`who
`
`last
`
`the
`
`employee
`
`employment
`
`which
`
`caused
`
`employed
`
`in the
`
`the
`
`disease
`
`and
`
`in which
`
`the
`
`disease
`
`was
`
`contracted,
`
`and
`
`that
`
`if
`
`the
`
`employee
`
`was
`
`injured
`
`while
`
`employed
`
`at an earlier
`
`time
`
`by another
`
`employer,
`
`the
`
`last
`
`employer
`
`may
`
`appeal
`
`for
`
`apportionment
`
`of
`
`the
`
`compensation
`
`before
`
`the
`
`Workers'
`
`Compensation
`
`Board.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`maintains
`
`that
`
`this
`
`statute
`
`also
`
`precludes
`
`her
`
`from
`
`bringing
`
`an action
`
`against
`
`Keasbey,
`
`as it provides
`
`that
`
`the
`
`total
`
`the
`
`employer
`
`who
`
`last
`
`employed
`
`the
`
`compensation
`
`due
`
`an injured
`
`employee
`
`is recoverable
`
`from
`
`employee.
`
`Thus,
`
`she asserts,
`
`pursuant
`
`to WCL § 11 and CPLR
`
`1601(4),
`
`Keasbey's
`
`share
`
`of
`
`liability
`
`.
`
`must
`
`be apportioned
`
`to Con
`
`Edison.
`
`Here
`
`again,
`
`defendants'
`
`theory
`
`of
`
`liability
`
`against
`
`Keasbey
`
`is not
`
`based
`
`on Brown's
`
`employment
`
`relationship
`
`with
`
`it or on equipment
`
`manufactured
`
`by Keasbey
`
`and
`
`used
`
`by Brown
`
`in his
`
`employment
`
`with
`
`Keasbey,
`
`but
`
`on Keasbey's
`
`defective
`
`products
`
`and
`
`its
`
`failure
`
`to warn
`
`of
`
`Page
`
`9 of
`
`12
`
`11
`
`of
`
`14
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2018 10:43 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 558
`551
`NYSCEF
`NO.
`DOC.
`
`INDEX NO. 190415/2012
`INDEX
`NO.
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2018
`12/14/2017
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`
`those
`
`defects,
`
`and
`
`the jury
`
`awarded
`
`damages
`
`based
`
`on the
`
`latter
`
`theory
`
`only.
`
`Plaintiff's
`
`reliance
`
`on WCL
`
`§ 44 is thus
`
`based
`
`solely
`
`on Keasbey's
`
`status
`
`as Brown's
`
`employer.
`
`An issue
`
`related
`
`to whether
`
`WCL
`
`§ 44 applies
`!
`
`to the
`
`circumstances
`
`at
`
`issue
`
`here
`
`was
`
`addressed
`
`in Konstantin
`
`v 630
`
`Third
`
`Ave.
`
`Assocs.,
`
`where
`
`the
`
`court
`
`denied
`
`a defendant-employer
`
`summary
`
`judgment
`
`based
`
`on WCL
`
`§ 11.
`
`The
`
`defendant,
`
`plaintiff's
`
`employer
`
`for
`
`part
`
`of
`
`the
`
`time
`
`which
`
`he was
`
`exposed
`
`had
`
`claimed
`
`the
`
`during
`
`to asbestos,
`
`that WCL
`
`§ 44 barred
`
`plaintiff's
`
`claim
`
`of
`
`liability
`
`against
`
`it
`
`for
`
`incidents
`
`of bystander
`
`exposure
`
`resulting
`
`from
`
`the
`
`conduct
`
`of
`
`its
`
`employees
`
`after
`
`the
`
`plaintiff
`
`was
`
`no longer
`
`employed
`
`by
`
`it.
`
`The motion
`
`court
`
`found
`
`that
`
`the
`
`facts
`
`presented
`
`were
`
`not
`
`contemplated
`
`by WCL
`
`§ 44,
`
`observing
`
`that
`
`the
`
`statute's
`
`sole
`
`purpose
`
`"is
`
`to
`
`ensure
`
`that
`
`a claimant
`
`is provided
`
`with
`
`fast
`
`and
`
`total
`
`compensation
`
`while
`
`preserving
`
`a
`
`from
`
`the
`
`claimant's
`
`prior
`
`mechanism
`
`by which
`
`the
`
`last
`
`employer
`
`may
`
`[
`
`] seek
`
`apportionment
`
`employers
`
`as to the
`
`injury
`
`at
`
`issue."
`
`(2011 WL 844107,
`
`2011 NY Slip Op 30482[U],
`
`*6
`
`[Sup
`
`Ct,
`
`New York
`
`County
`
`2011]
`
`[citing
`
`Minkowitz,
`
`Practice
`
`Commentaries,
`
`McKinney's
`
`Cons
`
`Laws
`
`of
`
`NY,
`
`Book
`
`64,
`
`Workers'
`
`Compensation
`
`Law
`
`§ 44,
`
`at 417-418]).
`
`The
`
`court
`
`also
`
`faulted
`
`the
`
`defendant
`
`for
`
`failing
`
`to acknowledge
`
`the
`
`"plain
`
`meaning"
`
`of WCL
`
`§ 2(7),
`
`which
`
`defines
`
`injury
`
`as
`
`"only"
`
`those
`
`injuries
`
`out
`
`of and
`
`in the
`
`course
`
`of employment,
`
`and WCL
`
`§ 10, which
`
`arising
`
`provides
`
`that
`
`Workers'
`
`Compensation
`
`bars
`
`only
`
`those
`
`claims
`
`a"rising
`
`out
`
`of and
`
`in the
`
`course
`
`of
`
`employment."
`
`The
`
`court
`
`thus
`
`held
`
`that,
`
`"incidents
`
`of exposure
`
`which
`
`did
`
`not
`
`arise
`
`out
`
`of and
`
`in
`
`the
`
`course
`
`of employment
`
`are not
`
`barred
`
`by
`
`the
`
`exclusivity
`
`provisions
`
`11."
`
`in §
`
`(Id.
`
`at 7).
`
`There,
`
`.
`
`as here:
`
`The
`with
`covers
`
`certainty
`only
`to [the
`respect
`those
`claims
`
`here
`
`defendant]
`which
`
`arose
`
`is that Mr.
`over
`out
`
`maintained
`Konstantin
`completely
`The WCL
`of his
`career.
`the
`course
`employment
`of Mr.
`Konstantin's
`
`two
`
`different
`
`roles
`
`undoubtedly
`as a laborer
`
`for
`
`[the
`
`Page
`
`10 of
`
`12
`
`12
`
`of
`
`14
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2018 10:43 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 558
`551
`NYSCEF
`NO.
`DOC.
`
`INDEX NO. 190415/2012
`190415/2012
`INDEX
`NO.
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2018
`12/14/2017
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`
`the WCL simply
`defendant].
`arose
`from
`Konstantin's
`role
`be a bystander
`to the
`action
`of
`[the
`to the
`extent
`arise
`from
`are not
`barred
`statute.
`
`not
`does
`apply
`as a carpenter
`defendant]'s
`his
`alleged
`
`to those
`incidents
`for
`a different
`employees.
`exposure
`
`after
`
`of exposure
`who
`Mr.
`[the
`
`which
`happened
`Konstantin's
`defendant]'s
`
`employer,
`Therefore,
`he left
`
`to
`
`But
`Mr.
`
`claims,
`employ,
`
`they
`by
`
`(Id.
`
`at 9; see also Horn
`
`v Treadwell,
`
`2010 WL 455283,
`
`2010 NY Slip Op 33123[U]
`
`[Sup
`
`Ct,
`
`New York
`
`County]
`
`[Workers'
`
`Compensation
`
`Law barred
`
`claim
`
`arising
`
`from
`
`asbestos
`
`exposure
`
`during
`
`plaintiff's
`
`employment
`
`with
`
`defendant,
`
`but
`
`did
`
`not
`
`bar
`
`claim
`
`arising
`
`from
`
`bystander
`
`exposure
`
`to asbestos
`
`caused
`
`by defendant's
`
`employees
`
`before
`
`he was
`
`employed
`
`by defendant]).
`
`in Pike
`
`the
`
`court
`
`held
`
`that
`
`plaintiff
`
`defendant
`
`Similarly,
`
`v CBS Corp.,
`
`as the
`
`was
`
`suing
`
`the
`
`for
`
`injuries
`
`that
`
`did
`
`not
`
`occur
`
`during
`
`his
`
`employment
`
`with
`
`the
`
`defendant,
`
`but
`
`rather
`
`for
`
`"non-
`
`employer
`
`negligence"
`
`(2014 WL 12694571
`
`[Sup
`
`Ct, Onondaga
`
`County
`
`2014]),
`
`WCL
`
`§ 11 did
`
`not
`
`bar
`
`this
`
`claim
`
`as the
`
`determination
`
`of
`
`the
`
`applicability
`
`of
`
`the
`
`bar
`
`is dependent
`
`on the
`
`"status
`
`of
`
`the
`
`actor
`
`at
`
`the
`
`time
`
`the
`
`acts
`
`sued
`
`upon
`
`are
`
`committed."
`
`(1d.).
`
`be
`
`thus,
`
`the
`
`defendant
`
`could
`
`held
`
`liable
`
`in tort
`
`for
`
`the
`
`plaintiff's
`
`injury
`
`from
`
`asbestos
`
`exposure
`
`that
`
`occurred
`
`when
`
`the
`
`plaintiff
`
`was
`
`not
`
`defendant's
`
`employee
`
`and
`
`resulted
`
`from
`
`the
`
`defendant's
`
`negligence.
`
`(Id).
`
`In Root
`
`v AES Corp.,
`
`et al.,
`
`the
`
`trial
`
`court
`
`held
`
`that
`
`all
`
`of
`
`the
`
`plaintiff's
`
`claims
`
`against
`
`his
`
`employer
`
`were
`
`barred,
`
`whether
`
`through
`
`the
`
`employment
`
`relationship
`
`or as a product
`
`manufacturer.
`
`Its decision
`
`that
`
`the
`
`plaintiff's
`
`mesothelioma
`
`was
`
`solely
`
`based
`
`on the
`
`ground
`
`constituted
`
`a "single
`
`injury."
`
`(Sup
`
`Ct, Oswego
`
`County,
`
`Sept.
`
`29,
`
`2003,
`
`McCarthy,
`
`J.,
`
`index
`
`No.
`
`10302/84).
`
`As
`
`no
`
`such
`
`argument
`
`is raised
`
`here,
`
`Root
`
`is significantly
`
`distinguishable
`
`from
`
`the
`
`case
`
`at bar.
`
`Even
`
`if Keasbey's
`
`"non-employer
`
`negligence"
`
`is nonetheless
`
`barred
`
`here,
`
`there
`
`is no
`
`remedy
`
`available
`
`apart
`
`from
`
`a new trial
`
`as neither
`
`this
`
`court
`
`nor
`
`the Appellate
`
`Division
`
`is in a
`
`Page
`
`11 of
`
`12
`
`13
`
`of
`
`14,
`
`

`

`FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/09/2018 10:43 AM
`NYSCEF
`551
`DOC.
`NO.
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 558
`
`INDEX NO. 190415/2012
`INDEX
`NO.
`190415/2012
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/09/2018
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`12/14/2017
`
`position
`
`to determine
`
`how
`
`the jury
`
`would
`
`have
`
`apportioned
`/
`
`liability
`
`absent
`
`Keasbey.
`
`Thus,
`
`for
`
`all
`
`of
`
`the
`
`foregoing
`
`reasons,
`
`plaintiff
`
`does
`
`not meet
`
`her
`
`burden
`
`of proving
`
`that
`
`the
`
`exception
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`in WCL
`
`§ 11 applies
`
`in this
`
`case.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`it
`
`is hereby
`
`ORDERED
`
`and ADJUDGED,
`
`that
`
`plaintiff's
`
`proposed
`
`judgment
`
`is denied,
`
`and Con
`
`Edison's
`
`proposed
`
`counter-judgment
`
`is accepted;
`
`and
`
`it
`
`is further
`
`ORDERED,
`
`that
`
`the
`
`clerk
`
`of
`
`the
`
`court
`
`is directed
`
`to enter
`
`judgment
`
`in accordance
`
`with
`
`the
`
`signed
`
`counter-judgment.
`
`ENTER:
`
`Dated:
`
`December
`New York,
`
`12, 2017
`New York
`
`BAllBARA
`
`E,
`
`JSC
`
`d-
`
`Page
`
`12 of
`
`12
`
`14
`
`of
`
`14
`
`II
`
`