`NEW YORK
`CLERK
`COUNTY
`05/15/2015
`FILED:
`04:27
`PM|
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 450
`NYSCEF
`DOC.
`NO.
`360
`SUPREME
`
`COURT
`OF THE
`NEW YORK
`
`STATE
`COUNTY
`
`INDEX NO. 612982/2015
`INDEX
`NO .
`1 9 0 13 2 / 2 0 1 3
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2018
`RECEIVED
`NYSCEF:
`05/15/2015
`OF NEW YORK
`
`PRESENT:
`
`ggTH1A
`
`S. KE
`
`Justice
`
`: 190132/2013
`Number
`Cindex
`F.
`CHARLES
`HILLYER,
`vs.
`SMITH WATER PRODUCTS
`A.O.
`NUMBER : 011
`SEQUENCE
`TRIAL DE NOVO
`
`CO.,
`
`1 to _ , were read on this motion
`
`numbered
`to Show Cause - Affidavits
`
`- Exhibits
`
`The following
`Notice
`of Motion/Order
`
`papers,
`
`Answering
`
`Affidavits
`
`Replying
`
`Affidavits
`
`-
`
`Exhibits
`
`PART
`
`INDEX NO.
`
`MOTION DATE
`
`MOTION SEQ. NO.
`
`| No(s).
`| No(s).
`| No(s).
`
`to/for
`
`Upon
`
`the foregoing
`
`papers,
`
`it
`
`is ordered
`
`that
`
`this motion
`
`is
`
`8 decided
`
`in
`
`accordance
`
`with
`
`the
`
`annexed
`
`decision.
`
`wOI
`
`-
`
`I-
`Q
`
`u.
`
`>-
`
`rn
`
`Z0
`
`U.I Z
`IX
`I
`th
`ui ~
`cn 0
`
`I-
`
`o
`E u.
`
`Dated:
`
`5
`
`15ll5
`
`°FN
`
`a.S.C.
`
`1. CHECK ONE:
`
`.....................................................................
`
`2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE:
`APPROPRIATE'
`3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE:
`
`...........................MOTION
`
`................................................
`
`CASE DISPOSED
`IS: O GRANTED
`¤ SETTLE ORDER
`DO NOT POST
`
`CYNTHI
`
`S. KERN
`t~ NONflNAL
`U GRANTED
`IN PART
`O SUBMIT ORDER
`REFERENCE
`APPOINTMENT
`
`DISPOSITION
`D OTHER
`
`O DENIED
`
`FIDUCIARY
`
`
`
`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2018 03:17 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 450
`
`INDEX NO. 612982/2015
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2018
`
`OF THE STATE
`COURT
`SUPREME
`OF NEW YORK:
`COUNTY
`Part
`55
`------------------------------------------------------------------x
`IN RE: NEW YORK CITY
`ASBESTOS
`------------------------------------------------------------------x
`CHARLENE
`as Executrix
`CHARLES
`
`HILLYER,
`F. HILLYER,
`
`OF NEW YORK
`
`LITIGATION
`
`for
`
`the Estate
`
`of
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Index
`
`No.190132/13
`
`-against-
`SMITH WATER
`
`A.O.
`
`PRODUCTS
`
`CO.,
`
`et al.,
`
`------------------------------------------------------------------x
`CYNTHIA
`HON.
`J.S.C.
`KERN,
`
`Defendants.
`
`I
`DECÍSION/ORDER
`
`Recitation,
`for:
`
`as required
`
`by CPLR 2219
`
`(a),
`
`of
`
`the papers
`
`considered
`
`in the
`
`review
`
`of
`
`this motion
`
`Papers
`
`Notice
`
`Annexed....................................
`and Affidavits
`of Motion
`Affidavits...................................................................
`Answering
`Affidavits......................................................................
`Replying
`Exhibits......................................................................................
`
`I
`Numbered
`
`1
`2
`3
`
`Defendant
`
`Burnham
`
`LLC ("Burnham")
`
`has
`
`filed
`
`the
`
`present
`
`post-trial
`
`motion
`
`pursuant
`
`to
`
`CPLR
`
`§ 4401
`
`and
`
`§ 4404
`
`for
`
`a directed
`
`verdict
`
`or an order
`
`setting
`
`aside
`
`the
`
`verdict
`
`and
`
`directing
`
`or
`
`that
`
`judgment
`
`be entered
`
`in favor
`
`of Burnham,
`
`in the
`
`alternative,
`
`for
`
`a new
`
`trial.
`
`In the
`
`alternative,
`
`it seeks
`
`remittitur
`
`of
`
`the
`
`verdict.
`
`Decedent
`
`Charles
`
`Hillyer
`
`instituted
`
`this
`
`asbestos
`
`product-liability
`
`action.
`
`At
`
`the
`
`time
`
`trial
`
`commenced,
`
`there
`
`were
`
`three
`
`remaining
`
`defendants,
`
`Burnham,
`
`Cleaver
`
`Brooks,
`
`Inc.
`
`and William
`
`Powell
`
`Company.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`and Cleaver
`
`Brooks
`
`Inc.
`
`resolved
`
`the
`
`case
`
`during
`
`the
`
`trial
`
`and
`
`plaintiff
`
`voluntarily
`
`discontinued
`
`as against
`
`William
`
`Powell
`
`Company
`
`before
`
`jury
`
`deliberations
`
`
`
`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2018 03:17 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 450
`
`INDEX NO. 612982/2015
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2018
`
`began.
`
`The
`
`jury
`
`rendered
`
`a verdict
`
`in favor
`
`of plaintiff
`
`and
`
`against
`
`defendant
`
`Burnham
`
`in the
`
`amount
`
`of $20 million
`
`for
`
`past
`
`pain
`
`and
`
`suffering.
`
`The
`
`jury
`
`also
`
`allocated
`
`thirty
`
`I
`
`percent
`
`of
`
`liability
`
`to Burnham,
`
`thirty
`
`percent
`
`to Cleaver
`
`Brooks
`
`Inc.
`
`and
`
`forty
`
`percent
`
`to William
`
`Powell
`
`Company.
`
`The
`
`jury
`
`also
`
`found
`
`that
`
`Burnham
`
`was
`
`reckless
`
`to warn
`
`of
`
`the
`
`toxic
`
`hazards
`
`of asbestos.
`
`in failing
`
`Plaintiff
`
`testified
`
`at his
`
`deposition
`
`regarding
`
`his
`
`exposure
`
`to Burnham
`
`boilers.
`
`He
`
`testified
`
`that
`
`he worked
`
`around
`
`many
`
`Burnham
`
`boilers
`
`as a steamfitter
`
`in the
`
`1970's
`
`and
`
`that
`
`he
`
`was
`
`exposed
`
`to asbestos
`
`from
`
`Burnham
`
`boilers
`
`when
`
`he worked
`
`around
`
`Burnham
`
`boilers.
`
`Tr.
`
`at
`
`651-652,
`
`700.
`
`He
`
`testified
`
`that
`
`he believed
`
`he was
`
`exposed
`
`to asbestos
`
`from
`
`Burnham
`
`boilers
`
`other
`
`would
`
`tear
`
`off
`
`insulation
`
`from
`
`and
`
`other
`
`boilers
`
`when
`
`workers
`
`the
`
`the
`
`boilers.
`
`Tr.
`
`at 700.
`
`He testified
`
`as follows:
`
`Again,
`in the
`and
`
`they would
`general
`area
`
`again,
`
`walking
`
`off
`
`tear
`that
`in it,
`
`they
`creating
`
`the
`insulation,
`were
`
`working
`dust.
`
`be taking
`we would
`just
`and
`they were
`
`off
`
`valves
`
`throwing
`
`—
`that-and
`and
`it on the
`ground
`
`I be
`
`Tr.
`
`at 700.
`
`Burnham
`
`makes
`
`a number
`
`of arguments
`
`as to why
`
`the
`
`verdict
`
`should
`
`be set aside.
`
`It
`
`argues
`
`that
`
`(1)
`
`it
`
`is entitled
`
`to a directed
`
`verdict
`
`or a new trial
`
`because
`
`plaintiff
`
`failed
`
`to prove
`
`a proximate
`
`cause
`
`of plaintiff's
`
`injury:
`
`the jury's
`
`that
`
`Burnham's
`
`failure
`
`to warn
`
`was
`
`(2)
`
`recklessness
`
`findings
`
`were
`
`not
`
`supported
`
`by
`
`the
`
`evidence;
`
`(3)
`
`the
`
`court's
`
`instruction
`
`on
`
`recklessness
`
`was
`
`improper;
`
`(5)
`
`it
`
`is entitled
`
`to a directed
`
`verdict
`
`or
`
`judgment
`
`notwithstanding
`
`the
`
`verdict
`
`because
`
`plaintiff's
`
`expert
`
`opinion
`
`was
`
`insufficient
`
`as a matter
`
`of
`
`law to establish
`
`specific
`
`causation;
`
`and
`
`(6)
`
`it
`
`is entitled
`
`to a new trial
`
`because
`
`the jury's
`
`allocation
`
`of
`
`fault
`
`is against
`
`the
`
`2
`
`
`
`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2018 03:17 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 450
`
`INDEX NO. 612982/2015
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2018
`
`weight
`
`of
`
`the
`
`evidence.
`
`In the
`
`alternative,
`
`it argues
`
`that
`
`the jury's
`
`award
`
`exceeds
`
`what
`
`is a
`
`reasonable
`
`award
`
`under
`
`the
`
`circumstances.
`
`Section
`
`4404(a)
`
`of
`
`the CPLR provides
`
`that
`
`"upon
`
`a motion
`
`of any
`
`party
`
`or on
`
`its own
`
`initiative,
`
`a court
`
`may
`
`set aside
`
`a verdict
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. and
`
`direct
`
`that
`
`judgment
`
`be entered
`
`in favor
`
`of a
`
`party
`
`entitled
`
`to judgment
`
`as a matter
`
`of
`
`law or
`
`it may
`
`order
`
`a new
`
`trial
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. where
`
`the
`
`verdict
`
`is
`
`to the weight
`
`of
`
`the
`
`in the
`
`justice."
`
`of
`
`The
`
`for
`
`contrary
`
`evidence,
`
`[or]
`
`interest
`
`standard
`
`setting
`
`aside
`
`a verdict
`
`is very
`
`high.
`
`The Court
`
`of Appeals
`
`has held
`
`that
`
`a verdict
`
`may
`
`be set aside
`
`only
`
`when
`
`"there
`
`is simply
`
`no valid
`
`line
`
`of
`
`reasoning
`
`and
`
`permissible
`
`inferences"
`
`which
`
`could
`
`have
`
`led
`
`to the
`
`conclusion
`
`reached
`
`the jury.
`
`Cohen
`
`v. Hallmark
`
`by
`
`Cards,
`
`Inc.,
`
`45 N.Y.2d
`
`493
`
`(1978).
`
`The
`
`First
`
`Department
`
`held
`
`that
`
`a verdict
`
`"will
`
`not
`
`be set aside
`
`unless
`
`the
`
`preponderance
`
`of
`
`the
`
`that
`
`could
`
`not
`
`have
`
`reached
`
`its
`
`verdict
`
`upon
`
`fair
`
`interpretation
`
`of
`
`evidence
`
`is so great
`
`the jury
`
`any
`
`evidence."
`
`the
`
`Pavlou
`
`v. City
`
`of New
`
`York,
`
`21 A.D.3d
`
`74,
`
`76
`
`(l"
`
`Dept
`
`2005).
`
`Moreover,
`
`the
`
`evidence
`
`must
`
`be construed
`
`in the
`
`light most
`
`favorable
`
`to the
`
`party
`
`that
`
`prevailed
`
`at
`
`trial.
`
`See
`
`Motichka
`
`v. Cody,
`
`279
`
`A.D.2d
`
`310
`
`(1"
`
`Dept
`
`2001).
`
`Where
`
`the
`
`case
`
`presents
`
`conflicting
`
`expert
`
`testimony,
`
`"[t]he
`
`weight
`
`to be accorded
`
`the
`
`conflicting
`
`testimony
`
`of experts
`
`is 'a matter
`
`peculiarly
`
`within
`
`the
`
`province
`
`of
`
`the
`
`jury.'"
`
`Torricelli
`
`v. Pisacano,
`
`9 A.D.3d
`
`291
`
`(1"
`
`Dept
`
`2004)
`
`(1" Dept
`
`2005).
`
`(citation
`
`omitted);
`
`see also
`
`Cholewinski
`
`v. Wisnicki,
`
`21 A.D.3d
`
`791
`
`Initially,
`
`Burnham
`
`argues
`
`that
`
`it
`
`is entitled
`
`to a directed
`
`verdict
`
`or
`
`judgment
`
`notwithstanding
`
`the
`
`verdict
`
`on the
`
`ground
`
`that
`
`plaintiff
`
`failed
`
`to prove
`
`that
`
`he would
`
`have
`
`heeded
`
`a warning
`
`if a warning
`
`had
`
`been
`
`provided
`
`by Burnham.
`
`However,
`
`this
`
`1I
`court
`
`has
`
`already
`
`rendered
`
`a decision
`
`at
`
`the
`
`conclusion
`
`of
`
`the
`
`trial
`
`denying
`
`Burnham's
`
`motion
`
`for
`
`a directed
`
`verdict
`
`on this
`
`issue
`
`and
`
`sees
`
`no reason
`
`to revisit
`
`this
`
`issue.
`
`This
`
`court
`
`specifically
`
`held
`
`as follows:
`
`3
`
`
`
`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2018 03:17 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 450
`
`INDEX NO. 612982/2015
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2018
`
`After
`both
`arguments
`counsel
`hearing
`in light
`the
`in this
`plaintiff
`of
`of
`and
`action,
`finds
`court
`at
`able
`to testify
`that
`the
`and
`trial,
`or not
`of whether
`transcript
`so that
`the
`issue
`the jury
`should
`be an issue
`to be decided
`by
`a reasonable
`and
`that
`the jury
`could
`make
`that
`he would
`heeded
`a [warning]
`have
`
`from
`
`if
`
`relevant
`and
`deposition
`the
`reading
`testimony
`fact
`and
`is deceased
`plaintiff
`that
`the
`not
`here
`there
`is enough
`deposition
`in the
`testimony
`plaintiff
`would
`a [warning]
`have
`heeded
`rather
`than
`of
`the
`as a matter
`court
`law;
`inference
`from
`the
`of
`the
`plaintiff
`been
`it had
`provided
`
`by
`
`testimony
`to him.
`
`Contrary
`
`to the
`
`argument
`
`made
`
`by Burnham,
`
`the
`
`court
`
`did
`
`not
`
`apply
`
`the
`
`heeding
`
`presumption
`
`in
`
`making
`
`its
`
`ruling
`
`denying
`
`the motion
`
`for
`
`a directed
`
`verdict.
`
`Rather,
`
`the
`
`court
`
`found
`
`that
`
`there
`
`was
`
`sufficient
`
`factual
`
`evidence
`
`in the
`
`record
`
`to submit
`
`the
`
`issue
`
`of whether
`
`plaintiff
`
`would
`
`have
`
`heeded
`
`if
`
`been
`
`provided
`
`who
`
`was
`
`entitled
`
`to make
`
`a warning
`
`it had
`
`to the jury,
`
`a credibility
`
`determination
`
`as to whether
`
`plaintiff
`
`would
`
`have
`
`heeded
`
`a warning
`
`if
`
`it had
`
`been
`
`given.
`
`Moreover,
`
`it
`
`is well
`
`settled
`
`that
`
`"[o]rdinarily,
`
`issues
`
`of proximate
`
`cause
`
`are
`
`fact
`
`questions
`
`to be decided
`
`jury."
`
`by a
`
`White
`
`v. Diaz,
`
`49 A.D.3d
`
`134,
`
`139
`
`(1"
`
`Dept
`
`2008)
`
`(internal
`
`citation
`
`omitted).
`
`Indeed,
`
`"[w]hile
`
`it
`
`is appropriate
`
`to decide
`
`the
`
`question
`
`of
`
`legal
`
`cause
`
`as a matter
`
`of
`
`from
`
`established
`
`where
`
`there
`
`law 'where
`
`only
`
`one
`
`conclusion
`
`may
`
`be drawn
`
`the
`
`facts',
`
`is any
`
`doubt,
`
`confusion,
`
`or difficulty
`
`in deciding
`
`whether
`
`the
`
`issue
`
`ought
`
`to be decided
`
`as a matter
`
`of
`
`law,
`
`the
`
`better
`
`course
`
`is to leave
`
`the
`
`point
`
`for
`
`the jury
`
`to
`
`decide."
`
`Id
`
`(quoting
`
`Derdiarian
`
`v.
`
`Felix
`
`Contr.
`
`Corp.,
`
`51 N.Y.2d
`
`308,
`
`315
`
`(1980)).
`
`Based
`
`on these
`
`well
`
`established
`
`principles,
`
`it
`
`is
`
`of
`
`this
`
`cause
`
`for
`
`to have
`
`determined
`
`the
`
`issue
`
`of
`
`appropriate
`
`under
`
`the
`
`circumstances
`
`the jury
`
`whether
`
`the
`
`failure
`
`to warn
`
`was
`
`the
`
`proximate
`
`cause
`
`of plaintiff's
`
`injuries
`
`rather
`
`than
`
`the
`
`court
`
`deciding
`
`the
`
`issue
`
`as a matter
`
`of
`
`law,
`
`as it
`
`is not
`
`clear
`
`that
`
`only
`
`one
`
`conclusion
`
`may
`
`be drawn
`
`from
`
`the
`
`deposition
`
`testimony
`
`as to whether
`
`plaintiff
`
`would
`
`have
`
`heeded
`
`a warning.
`
`To
`
`the
`
`extent
`
`that
`
`Burnham
`
`argues
`
`that
`
`the
`
`court
`
`committed
`
`an er or by not
`
`specifically
`
`4
`
`
`
`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2018 03:17 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 450
`
`INDEX NO. 612982/2015
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2018
`
`charging
`
`the jury
`
`that
`
`it was
`
`plaintiff's
`
`burden
`
`to prove
`
`that
`
`plaintiff
`
`would
`
`have
`
`heeded
`
`a
`
`warning
`
`if one
`
`had
`
`been
`
`given,
`
`the
`
`court
`
`finds
`
`this
`
`argument
`
`to be without
`
`merit.
`
`The
`
`court's
`
`charges
`
`on duty
`
`to warn,
`
`proximate
`
`cause
`
`and
`
`burdens
`
`of proof
`
`were
`
`entirely
`
`consistent
`
`with
`
`the
`
`charges
`
`contained
`
`in the
`
`pattern
`
`jury
`
`instructions,
`
`there
`
`is no pattern
`
`jury
`
`instruction
`
`which
`
`contains
`
`the
`
`language
`
`Burnham
`
`wished
`
`the
`
`court
`
`to charge
`
`regarding
`
`burden
`
`of proof
`
`and
`
`proposition
`
`that
`
`court
`
`Burnham
`
`has not
`
`cited
`
`to any
`
`authority
`
`for
`
`the
`
`the
`
`is required
`
`to charge
`
`the
`
`foregoing
`
`language
`
`regarding
`
`burden
`
`of proof.
`
`Burnham
`
`next
`
`argues
`
`that
`
`the
`
`court
`
`should
`
`set aside
`
`the jury's
`
`verdict
`
`that
`
`Burnham
`
`acted
`
`with
`
`reckless
`
`disregard
`
`for
`
`plaintiff's
`
`safety
`
`as the
`
`evidence
`
`at
`
`trial
`
`did
`
`not warrant
`
`submission
`
`of
`
`the
`
`reckless
`
`disregard
`
`issue
`
`to the jury
`
`and
`
`the jury's
`
`finding
`
`of
`
`recklessness
`
`was
`
`against
`
`the
`
`weight
`
`of
`
`the
`
`evidence.
`
`argument
`
`the
`
`evidence
`
`presented
`
`at
`
`trial
`
`did
`
`not
`
`Its primary
`
`is that
`
`establish
`
`recklessness
`
`based
`
`on the Court
`
`of Appeals
`
`decision
`
`in Maltese
`
`v. Westinghouse
`
`Electric
`
`Corp.,
`
`89 N.Y.2d
`
`955
`
`(1997).
`
`In Maltese,
`
`the
`
`court
`
`stated
`
`that
`
`it was
`
`adopting
`
`a "gross
`
`negligence
`
`standard'
`
`for
`
`reckless
`
`conduct,
`
`requiring
`
`a finding
`
`that
`
`"the
`
`actor
`
`has
`
`intentionally
`
`done
`
`an act of an unreasonable
`
`character
`
`in disregard
`
`of a known
`
`and
`
`obvious
`
`risk
`
`that was
`
`so
`
`great
`
`as to make
`
`it highly
`
`probable
`
`that
`
`harm would
`
`follow
`
`and
`
`has done
`
`so with
`
`conscious
`
`indifference
`
`to the
`
`outcome."
`
`The
`
`court
`
`stated
`
`that
`
`there
`
`was
`
`insufficient
`
`evidence
`
`to sustain
`
`a
`
`verdict
`
`of
`
`recklessness.
`
`According
`
`to the
`
`court,
`
`the
`
`evidence
`
`revealed
`
`that
`
`the
`
`defendant
`
`was
`
`aware
`
`that
`
`exposure
`
`to high
`
`concentrations
`
`of asbestos
`
`over
`
`time
`
`could
`
`cause
`
`injury
`
`"but
`
`not
`
`that
`
`workers
`
`such
`
`as [plaintiffs]
`
`were
`
`at
`
`risk
`
`at any
`
`time
`
`it could
`
`have
`
`warned
`
`them."
`
`Id
`
`The
`
`court
`
`finds
`
`that
`
`the jury's
`
`finding
`
`that Bumham
`
`acted
`
`with
`
`reckless
`
`disregard
`
`is
`
`supported
`
`by
`
`the
`
`record
`
`and
`
`should
`
`not
`
`be set aside.
`
`There
`
`was
`
`a valid
`
`line
`
`of
`
`reasoning
`
`and
`
`5
`
`
`
`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2018 03:17 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 450
`
`INDEX NO. 612982/2015
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2018
`
`permissible
`
`inferences
`
`which
`
`could
`
`have
`
`led
`
`a rational
`
`jury
`
`to conclude
`
`based
`
`on the
`
`evidence
`
`presented
`
`at
`
`trial
`
`that
`
`Burnham
`
`acted
`
`with
`
`reckless
`
`disregard,
`
`unlike
`
`the
`
`defendant
`
`in Maltese.
`
`Initially,
`
`there
`
`was
`
`evidence
`
`presented
`
`at
`
`trial
`
`from
`
`which
`
`a jury
`
`could
`
`have
`
`rationally
`
`concluded
`
`that
`
`Burnham
`
`had
`
`actual
`
`knowledge
`
`that
`
`exposure
`
`to high
`
`concentrations
`
`of asbestos
`
`over
`
`time
`
`could
`
`cause
`
`injury.
`
`There
`
`was
`
`also
`
`evidence
`
`presented
`
`at
`
`trial
`
`from
`
`which
`
`a jury
`
`could
`
`have
`
`that
`
`period
`
`claimed
`
`rationally
`
`concluded
`
`during
`
`the
`
`of plaintiff's
`
`exposure
`
`to Burnham's
`
`boilers
`
`in the
`
`1970's
`
`that
`
`Burnham
`
`was
`
`aware
`
`of
`
`the
`
`following:
`
`that
`
`there
`
`were
`
`unjacketed
`
`Burnham
`
`boilers
`
`still
`
`in use;
`
`that
`
`Burnham
`
`had
`
`previously
`
`specified
`
`that
`
`these
`
`unjacketed
`
`boilers
`
`should
`
`be
`
`covered
`
`with
`
`asbestos
`
`cement;
`
`that
`
`these
`
`boilers
`
`were
`
`in fact
`
`covered
`
`with
`
`asbestos
`
`cement;
`
`that
`
`the asbestos
`
`cement
`
`would
`
`eventually
`
`have
`
`to be removed
`
`from
`
`the
`
`boilers
`
`when
`
`they
`
`were
`
`replaced
`
`that when
`
`the
`
`asbestos
`
`cement
`
`was
`
`removed
`
`from
`
`the
`
`dust
`
`or discarded;
`
`boilers,
`
`containing
`
`asbestos
`
`would
`
`be dispersed
`
`in the
`
`air
`
`and
`
`could
`
`be breathed
`
`in by workers
`
`in the
`
`vicinity,
`
`including
`
`workers
`
`who
`
`were
`
`not
`
`specifically
`
`working
`
`on the
`
`boilers;
`
`that Bumham
`
`never
`
`tested
`
`or
`
`investigated
`
`the
`
`safety
`
`of asbestos
`
`despite
`
`the
`
`fact
`
`that
`
`it knew
`
`asbestos
`
`was
`
`being
`
`used
`
`with
`
`its boilers;
`
`and
`
`that
`
`Burnham
`
`did
`
`not
`
`provide
`
`any warnings
`
`to any
`
`of
`
`these
`
`workers
`
`in
`
`violation
`
`of
`
`its
`
`continuing
`
`duty
`
`to warn
`
`post
`
`sale.
`
`Based
`
`on these
`
`inferences,
`
`which
`
`the jury
`
`at
`
`was
`
`a rational
`
`basis
`
`for
`
`could
`
`reasonably
`
`conclude
`
`based
`
`on the
`
`evidence
`
`presented
`
`trial,
`
`there
`
`the jury
`
`to conclude
`
`that
`
`Burnham
`
`"has
`
`intentionally
`
`done
`
`an act of an unreasonable
`
`character
`
`in
`
`disregard
`
`of a known
`
`and
`
`obvious
`
`risk
`
`that was
`
`so great
`
`as to make
`
`it highly
`
`probable
`
`that
`
`harm
`
`would
`
`follow
`
`and
`
`has done
`
`so with
`
`conscious
`
`indifference
`
`to the
`
`outcome."
`
`Id
`
`Moreover,
`
`there
`
`was
`
`evidence
`
`presented
`
`from
`
`which
`
`a jury
`
`could
`
`rationally
`
`conclude
`
`that
`
`Burnham
`
`could
`
`have
`
`warned
`
`workers
`
`such
`
`as plaintiff
`
`in the
`
`1970's
`
`that
`
`they were
`
`at
`
`risk
`
`when
`
`they
`
`were
`
`in the
`
`6
`
`
`
`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2018 03:17 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 450
`
`INDEX NO. 612982/2015
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2018
`
`of
`
`the
`
`unjacketed
`
`boilers
`
`at
`
`the
`
`time
`
`that
`
`the
`
`asbestos
`
`cement
`
`was
`
`removed
`
`from
`
`the
`
`vicinity
`
`boilers.
`
`This
`
`exact
`
`issue
`
`was
`
`recently
`
`addressed
`
`by
`
`Justice
`
`Madden
`
`in Assenzio
`
`v. A.O.
`
`Smith
`
`Water
`
`Products,
`
`Co.,
`
`Index
`
`No.
`
`190008/2012
`
`(Sup
`
`Ct. NY Co
`
`2012).
`
`In that
`
`decision,
`
`she
`
`rejected
`
`the
`
`same
`
`argument
`
`being
`
`made
`
`in the
`
`present
`
`case
`
`that
`
`there
`
`was
`
`insufficient
`
`evidence
`
`before
`
`the jury
`
`to uphold
`
`a finding
`
`of
`
`recklessness
`
`as against
`
`Burnham
`
`under
`
`the
`
`standard
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`by
`
`the Court
`
`of Appeals
`
`in Maltese.
`
`According
`
`to Justice
`
`Madden:
`
`dangers
`available
`
`of asbestos
`in various
`
`exposure
`trade
`
`to the
`respect
`as information
`regulations
`find
`that
`
`with
`evidence
`presented
`Plaintiffs
`sufficient
`as well
`information
`from
`available
`publically
`in government
`in other
`and
`literature
`and
`journals
`the jury
`compensation
`so that
`worker's
`could
`laws,
`of
`to asbestos.
`dangers
`have
`known
`the
`of exposure
`to establish
`was
`presented
`that
`Burnham...specified
`be used
`equipment.
`in their
`products
`would
`
`containing
`
`and;statutes,
`...Burnham
`sufficient
`or knew
`
`Moreover,
`the
`use of,
`
`including
`knew
`or should
`evidence
`at
`that
`asbestos
`
`trial
`
`This
`evidence
`Burnham
`acted
`of
`the
`dangers
`specified
`the
`such
`insulation;
`it
`failed
`to warn
`
`the
`
`testing
`any
`of asbestos.
`
`to sustain
`proof
`sufficient
`establishes
`with
`to the
`rights
`indifference
`gross
`of
`a history
`of asbestos;
`it had
`insulation
`on the
`use of asbestos
`it
`failed
`to perform
`about
`dangers
`
`the jury's
`or safety
`boilers
`and
`respect
`
`determination
`of others,
`for
`over
`of
`interior
`to exposure
`
`knew
`
`that
`as Burnham
`hundred
`one
`years;
`and
`its boilers
`sold
`to asbestos,
`and
`
`it
`
`selling
`exterior
`with
`
`Moreover,
`
`as the First
`
`Department
`
`found
`
`in the Dummitt
`
`case
`
`against
`
`Crane,
`
`there
`
`was;
`
`sufficient
`asbestos.
`dangers
`admitted
`
`evidence
`[defendant's]
`showing
`that
`demonstrated
`evidence
`The
`1930's
`of asbestos
`as early
`as the
`it knew
`of asbestos
`the
`dangers
`
`of
`
`reckless
`
`by
`
`[defendant]
`from
`various
`the
`
`disregard
`had
`trade
`associations,
`1970's.
`
`the
`
`for
`received
`
`hazards
`warnings
`
`posed
`about
`
`by
`the
`
`and
`
`[defendant]
`
`early
`
`Similarly,
`
`in this
`
`case
`
`against
`
`Burnham,
`
`there
`
`was
`
`evidence
`
`admitted
`
`from
`
`which
`
`a jury
`
`could
`
`reasonably
`
`infer
`
`that
`
`defendant
`
`had
`
`received
`
`warnings
`
`about
`
`the
`
`danger
`
`of asbestos
`
`as early
`
`as the
`
`1930's
`
`from
`
`various
`
`trade
`
`associations
`
`and
`
`that
`
`it knew
`
`about
`
`the
`
`dangers
`
`of asbestos
`
`in the
`
`7
`
`
`
`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2018 03:17 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 450
`
`INDEX NO. 612982/2015
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2018
`
`1970's
`
`when
`
`plaintiff
`
`was
`
`allegedly
`
`exposed
`
`to asbestos
`
`from
`
`Burnham
`
`boilers.
`
`Burnham
`
`next
`
`argues
`
`that
`
`the
`
`court's
`
`instruction
`
`on recklessness
`
`was
`
`improper
`
`as it
`
`failed
`
`to adequately
`
`convey
`
`to the jury
`
`the
`
`level
`
`of
`
`culpability
`
`required
`
`to support
`
`a recklessness
`
`finding.
`
`It argues
`
`that
`
`the jury
`
`charge
`
`contained
`
`in pattern
`
`jury
`
`instruction
`
`2:275.2,
`
`which
`
`is the
`
`charge
`
`that
`
`this
`
`court
`
`used,
`
`fails
`
`to incorporate
`
`the
`
`standard
`
`required
`
`by
`
`the Court
`
`of Appeals
`
`as the
`
`court
`
`finds
`
`that
`
`the
`
`language
`
`it used
`
`to
`
`decision
`
`in Maltese.
`
`This
`
`argument
`
`is without
`
`basis
`
`instruct
`
`the jury
`
`on the
`
`recklessness
`
`standard
`
`was
`
`proper.
`
`As
`
`Justice
`
`Madden
`
`recently
`
`held
`
`in
`
`Assenzio
`
`v. A.0
`
`Water
`
`Smith
`
`Prod.,
`
`"in Maltese,
`
`the
`
`court
`
`did
`
`not
`
`hold
`
`that
`
`any
`
`specific
`
`language
`
`was
`
`required,
`
`and
`
`the PJI
`
`charge,
`
`as given,
`
`adequately
`
`expressed
`
`the
`
`standard."
`
`Moreover,
`
`the
`
`First
`
`Department
`
`in In re New York
`
`City
`
`Asbestos
`
`Litig.
`
`(Konstantin
`
`and Dummitt),
`
`121 A.D.3d
`
`230
`
`(1" Dept
`
`2014)
`
`("Dummitt")
`
`recently
`
`upheld
`
`a finding
`
`of
`
`recklessness
`
`as to other
`
`defendants
`
`the
`
`in an asbestos
`
`product
`
`liability
`
`litigation
`
`where
`
`the
`
`same
`
`exact
`
`language
`
`was
`
`used
`
`in charging
`
`jury
`
`on recklessness.
`
`Moreover,
`
`Burnham
`
`has not
`
`cited
`
`any
`
`cases where
`
`a court
`
`has
`
`found
`
`that
`
`the
`
`language
`
`used
`
`in the
`
`pattern
`
`jury
`
`instruction
`
`to define
`
`recklessness
`
`has ever
`
`been
`
`overturned
`
`by any
`
`court
`
`as not
`
`articulating
`
`the
`
`proper
`
`standard
`
`despite
`
`the
`
`fact
`
`that
`
`this
`
`charge
`
`has
`
`been
`
`used
`
`in countless
`
`litigations,
`
`including
`
`numerous
`
`asbestos
`
`and
`
`non-asbestos
`
`cases,
`
`and
`
`despite
`
`the
`
`fact
`
`eighteen
`
`years
`
`ago.'
`ago.
`
`that
`
`the Maltese
`
`decision
`
`is from
`
`1997,
`
`approximately
`
`Burnham
`
`next
`
`argues
`
`that
`
`it
`
`is entitled
`
`to a directed
`
`verdict
`
`or
`
`judgment
`
`notwithstanding
`
`the
`
`verdict
`
`because
`
`plaintiff's
`
`expert
`
`opinion
`
`was
`
`insufficient
`
`as a matter
`
`of
`
`law to establish
`
`specific
`
`causation
`
`as required
`
`under
`
`the
`
`holding
`
`in Parker
`
`v. Mobil
`
`Oil Corp.,
`
`7 N.Y.3d
`
`434
`
`(2006).
`
`In Parker,
`
`the
`
`court
`
`held
`
`that
`
`it
`
`"is well
`
`established
`
`that
`
`an opinion
`
`on causation
`
`should
`
`set
`
`forth
`
`a plaintiff's
`
`exposure
`
`to a toxin,
`
`that
`
`the
`
`toxin
`
`is capable
`
`of
`
`causing
`
`the
`
`particular
`
`illness
`
`8
`
`
`
`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2018 03:17 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 450
`
`INDEX NO. 612982/2015
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2018
`
`(general
`
`causation)
`
`and
`
`that
`
`plaintiff
`
`was
`
`exposed
`
`to sufficient
`
`levels
`
`of
`
`the
`
`toxin
`
`to cause
`
`the
`
`illness
`
`(specific
`
`causation.)."
`
`Id.
`
`at 448.
`
`However,
`
`"it
`
`is not
`
`always
`
`necessary
`
`for
`
`a plaintiff
`
`to
`
`quantify
`
`exposure
`
`levels
`
`precisely
`
`or use the
`
`dose-response
`
`relationship,
`
`provided
`
`that whatever
`
`methods
`
`an expert
`
`uses
`
`to establish
`
`causation
`
`are generally
`
`accepted
`
`in the
`
`scientific
`
`community."
`
`Id.
`
`In that
`
`case,
`
`the
`
`court
`
`rejected
`
`the
`
`plaintiff's
`
`experts'
`
`testimony
`
`that
`
`exposure
`
`to
`
`gasoline
`
`caused
`
`plaintiff's
`
`AML
`
`as "[p]laintiff's
`
`experts
`
`were
`
`unable
`
`to identify
`
`a single
`
`epidemiologic
`
`study
`
`finding
`
`an inci·eased
`
`risk
`
`of AML
`
`a s a result
`
`of exposure
`
`to
`
`gasoline."
`
`Id.
`
`at 450.
`
`In Cornell
`
`v. 360 W. 51st Realty
`
`LLC,
`
`22 N.Y.
`
`762
`
`(2014),
`
`the Court
`
`of Appeals
`
`again
`
`to establish
`
`specific
`
`causation
`
`tort
`
`addressed
`
`the
`
`issue
`
`of what
`
`showing
`
`must
`
`be made
`
`in a toxic
`
`case.
`
`It stated
`
`as follows:
`
`Parker
`numerical
`
`explains
`value'
`value'
`
`that
`'precise
`is not
`required
`dispensed
`with
`though,
`means,
`to cause
`the
`claimed
`substance
`Circuit
`the Eight
`that
`conclude
`kind
`of harm
`
`commented....,
`plaintiff
`was
`the
`plaintiff
`
`the
`that
`
`quantification'
`
`relationship'
`
`or a 'dose-response
`causation.
`of
`a showing
`to make
`specific
`to establish
`sufficient
`burden
`a plaintiff's
`effect....As
`the Circuit
`health
`adverse
`there must
`be some
`evidence
`from
`of
`exposed
`to levels
`that
`agent
`that
`claims
`suffered.
`to have
`
`exact
`'an
`or
`Parker
`by no
`exposure
`to a
`of Appeals
`a factfinder
`to cause
`
`for
`can
`the
`
`Court
`which
`are known
`
`Id.
`
`at 784.
`
`In Lustenring
`
`v. AC&S,
`
`Inc.,
`
`13 A.D.3d
`
`(l"
`
`69
`
`Dept
`
`2004),
`
`ly. denied,4N.Y.3d
`
`708
`
`(2005),
`
`an asbestos
`
`case,
`
`the First
`
`Department
`
`addressed
`
`what
`
`showing
`
`must
`
`be made
`
`to establish
`
`specific
`
`causation
`
`in an asbestos
`
`case.
`
`According
`
`to the
`
`court,
`
`the
`
`evidence
`
`showed
`
`that
`
`plaintiffs
`
`worked
`
`all
`
`day
`
`for
`
`long
`
`periods
`
`in clouds
`
`of dust which
`
`was
`
`raised
`
`by
`
`the manipulation
`
`and
`
`crushing
`
`of defendant's
`
`packing
`
`and
`
`gaskets,
`
`which
`
`were made
`
`with
`
`asbestos.
`
`The
`
`court
`
`found
`
`that
`
`"[v]alid
`
`expert
`
`testimony
`
`indicated
`
`that
`
`such
`
`dust,
`
`raised
`
`from
`
`asbestos
`
`products
`
`and
`
`9
`
`I
`
`
`
`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2018 03:17 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 450
`
`INDEX NO. 612982/2015
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2018
`
`not
`
`just
`
`from
`
`industrial
`
`air
`
`in general,
`
`necessarily
`
`contains
`
`enough
`
`asbestos
`
`to cause
`
`mesothelioma."
`
`Id.
`
`at 70.
`
`In the
`
`present
`
`case,
`
`the
`
`court
`
`finds
`
`that
`
`the
`
`expert
`
`testimony
`
`presented
`
`in this
`
`case was
`
`sufficient
`
`to satisfy
`
`the
`
`standards
`
`enunciated
`
`by
`
`the Court
`
`of Appeals
`
`in Parker
`
`and Cornell.
`
`Initially,
`
`the
`
`trial
`
`and
`
`appellate
`
`courts
`
`in New York
`
`which
`
`have
`
`addressed
`
`the
`
`issue,
`
`both
`
`before
`
`after
`
`Parker
`
`have
`
`been
`
`have
`
`held
`
`that
`
`the
`
`presence
`
`of
`
`dust
`
`from
`
`and
`
`decided,
`
`consistently
`
`visible
`
`an asbestos
`
`containing
`
`product
`
`establishes
`
`a sufficient
`
`foundation
`
`for
`
`an expert
`
`to conclude
`
`that
`
`the
`
`use of
`
`such
`
`product
`
`was
`
`a substantial
`
`factor
`
`in causing
`
`mesothelioma
`
`and Burnham
`
`has not
`
`cited
`
`to any New York
`
`cases where
`
`a court
`
`has not
`
`upheld
`
`a finding
`
`of
`
`specific
`
`causation
`
`where
`
`visible
`
`dust was
`
`present.
`
`See,
`
`e.g.,
`
`Lustenring.;
`
`Penn
`
`v. Amchem,
`
`85 A.D
`
`3d 475,
`
`476
`
`(1"
`
`Dept
`
`2010)("On
`
`the
`
`issue
`
`of
`
`causation,
`
`sufficient
`
`evidence
`
`was
`
`provided
`
`by
`
`[plhintiff's]
`
`testimony
`
`that
`
`dust
`
`expert's
`
`that
`
`visible
`
`emanated
`
`while
`
`working
`
`with
`
`the
`
`dental
`
`liners
`
`and
`
`by his
`
`testimony
`
`such
`
`dust must
`
`have
`
`contained
`
`enough
`
`asbestos
`
`to cause
`
`his mesothelioma");
`
`Matter
`
`of New York
`
`Asbestòs
`
`Litig,
`
`28 A.D.3d
`
`255
`
`(1st
`
`Dept
`
`2006)(evidence
`
`fairly
`
`interpreted,
`
`permitted
`
`liability
`
`verdicts
`
`reached
`
`by
`
`the jury
`
`where
`
`the
`
`"evidence
`
`demonstrated
`
`that
`
`both
`
`plaintiffs
`
`were
`
`regularly
`
`exposed
`
`to dust
`
`from
`
`working
`
`with
`
`defendant's
`
`gaskets
`
`and
`
`packing,
`
`which
`
`were made
`
`of
`
`indicated
`
`that
`
`such
`
`dust
`
`from
`
`asbestos
`
`products
`
`contained
`
`asbestos.
`
`The
`
`experts
`
`containing
`
`enough
`
`asbestos
`
`to cause mesothelioma");
`
`Berger
`
`v. Achem
`
`Products,
`
`13 Misc.
`
`3d 335,
`
`346
`
`(Sup
`
`Ct NY Co
`
`2006)(
`
`"It
`
`has
`
`long
`
`been
`
`established
`
`that mesothelioma
`
`caused
`
`by asbestos
`
`exposure
`
`is
`
`frequently
`
`not
`
`dose
`
`related
`
`and
`
`relatively
`
`small
`
`numbers
`
`of
`
`fiber
`
`that
`
`are inhaled
`
`may
`
`remain
`
`in
`
`the
`
`lungs
`
`for
`
`long
`
`periods
`
`and
`
`cause mesothelioma").
`
`Cf
`
`Arthur
`
`Juni
`
`v. A.O.
`
`Smith
`
`Water
`
`Product,
`
`Index
`
`No.
`
`190315/2012
`
`(Sup
`
`Ct NY Co
`
`2015)(evidence
`
`offered
`
`insufficient
`
`to prove
`
`10
`
`
`
`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2018 03:17 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 450
`
`INDEX NO. 612982/2015
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2018
`
`that
`
`dust
`
`to which
`
`plaintiff
`
`was
`
`exposed
`
`contained
`
`any
`
`asbestos).
`
`Moreover,
`
`the
`
`court
`
`finds
`
`that
`
`the
`
`expert
`
`testimony
`
`of David
`
`Schwartz,
`
`M.D.
`
`was
`
`sufficient
`
`to present
`
`the
`
`issue
`
`of
`
`specific
`
`causation
`
`to the jury
`
`to be resolved.
`
`Initially,
`
`he
`
`testified
`
`that
`
`there
`
`is no safe
`
`level
`
`of exposure
`
`to asbestos
`
`in regard
`
`to causing
`
`mesothelioma
`
`and
`
`that
`
`there
`
`are people
`
`who
`
`mesothelioma
`
`after
`
`low
`
`develop
`
`being
`
`exposed
`
`to extraordinarily
`
`concentrations
`
`of asbestos.
`
`Tr.
`
`at 1019.
`
`He
`
`further
`
`testified
`
`that:
`
`one
`
`fiber
`The
`
`that
`risk
`
`can
`you
`fiber
`one
`experienced
`exposures.
`the
`first
`
`developing
`
`the
`out
`pick
`never
`could
`disease.
`cause
`throughout
`their
`can
`What
`you
`exposure
`to onset
`particular
`the
`
`lifetime,
`is the
`say
`of disease
`
`outcome,
`
`caused
`is related
`and
`you
`exposures
`are all
`in this
`
`though
`even
`the
`disease,
`of exposure
`amount
`to the
`individual
`pick
`apart
`those
`can't
`within
`that
`took
`the
`place
`latency
`related
`to, and
`to the
`risk
`contribute
`the mesothelioma
`
`its possible
`that
`that
`someone
`
`period,
`of
`
`case,
`
`know
`we
`All
`mesothelioma
`mesothelioma.
`
`is the
`and
`
`cumulative
`that
`all
`of
`
`exposure
`exposure
`
`the
`
`increased
`contributed
`
`his
`
`risk
`cumulative
`to the
`development
`
`of developing
`of his
`
`Tr.
`
`at 1021,
`
`1029.
`
`He
`
`further
`
`testified
`
`that
`
`plaintiff's
`
`mesothelioma
`
`was
`
`caused
`
`by occupational
`
`He testified
`
`that
`
`plaintiff
`
`"was
`
`exposed
`
`to asbestos
`
`exposure
`
`to asbestos.
`
`Tr.
`
`at 1027.
`
`between
`
`1960
`
`and
`
`1983.
`
`During
`
`that
`
`time
`
`he was
`
`exposed
`
`on a very
`
`regular
`
`basis
`
`to asbestos
`
`while
`
`working
`
`as a steamfitter.
`
`He was
`
`exposed
`
`by
`
`virtue
`
`of his
`
`own
`
`activities
`
`as a steamfitter
`
`and
`
`by
`
`virtue
`
`of working
`
`around
`
`others
`
`who
`
`were
`
`working
`
`in his
`
`environment
`
`on products
`
`that were,
`
`or
`
`that was
`
`insulated
`
`with
`
`asbestos."
`
`Tr.
`
`at 1028.
`
`he also
`
`testified
`
`that
`
`based
`
`on
`
`machinery
`
`Finally,
`
`plaintiff's
`
`deposition
`
`testimony
`
`that while
`
`he was working
`
`as a steamfitter,
`
`he worked
`
`around
`
`many
`
`Burnham
`
`boilers,
`
`that
`
`other
`
`workers
`
`were
`
`tearing
`
`off
`
`insulation
`
`from
`
`the Burnham
`
`boilers
`
`in his
`
`presence
`
`and
`
`that
`
`there
`
`would
`
`be visible
`
`dust
`
`from
`
`this
`
`activity,
`
`that
`
`"the
`
`exposure
`
`to the
`
`dust
`
`from
`
`the
`
`boilers
`
`was
`
`a substantial
`
`contributing
`
`factor
`
`in terms
`
`of Mr.
`
`Hillyer
`
`developing
`
`11
`
`I
`
`
`
`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2018 03:17 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 450
`
`INDEX NO. 612982/2015
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2018
`
`mesothelioma."
`
`Tr.
`
`at 1036.
`
`The
`
`basis
`
`for
`
`this
`
`opinion
`
`was
`
`his
`
`"personal
`
`and
`
`professional
`
`training
`
`in occupational
`
`environmental
`
`medicine
`
`as well
`
`as [his]
`
`experience
`
`in this
`
`area,
`
`the
`
`peer
`
`reviewed
`
`literature,
`
`the
`
`opinions
`
`of professional
`
`societies,
`
`and
`
`the
`
`opinion
`
`of
`
`scientific
`
`organizations
`
`as well
`
`as regulatory
`
`bodies."
`
`Tr.
`
`at 1036.
`
`The
`
`court
`
`finds
`
`that
`
`the methods
`
`used
`
`by plaintiff's
`
`expert
`
`at
`
`trial
`
`to establish
`
`that
`
`levels
`
`of asbestos
`
`from
`
`Burnham's
`
`products
`
`for
`
`those
`
`plaintiff
`
`was
`
`exposed
`
`to sufficient
`
`products
`
`to have
`
`been
`
`a substantial
`
`contributing
`
`factor
`
`in causing
`
`plaintiff's
`
`mesothelioma
`
`are generally
`
`accepted
`
`in the
`
`scientific
`
`community.
`
`Based
`
`on the
`
`testimony
`
`presented
`
`at
`
`trial,
`
`the
`
`expert
`
`sufficiently
`
`established
`
`that
`
`it
`
`is generally
`
`accepted
`
`in the
`
`scientific
`
`community
`
`that
`
`there
`
`is no
`
`safe
`
`level
`
`of exposure
`
`to asbestos,
`
`that
`
`even
`
`a low
`
`dose
`
`exposure
`
`to asbestos
`
`can
`
`cause
`
`mesothelioma
`
`and
`
`that
`
`plaintiff
`
`was
`
`exposed
`
`to asbestos
`
`from
`
`Burnham
`
`boilers
`
`based
`
`on the
`
`in
`
`release
`
`of
`
`visible
`
`dust when
`
`the
`
`insulation
`
`was
`
`removed.
`
`As
`
`the Court
`
`of Appeals
`
`made
`
`clear
`
`Parker.
`
`"it
`
`is not
`
`always
`
`necessary
`
`for
`
`a plaintiff
`
`to quantify
`
`exposure
`
`levels
`
`precisely
`
`or use the
`
`dose-response
`
`relationship,
`
`provided
`
`that whatever
`
`methods
`
`an expert
`
`uses
`
`to establish
`
`causation
`
`are generally
`
`accepted
`
`in the
`
`scientific
`
`community."
`
`Id.
`
`Burnham's
`
`argument
`
`that
`
`it
`
`is entitled
`
`to a new trial
`
`because
`
`the jury's
`
`allocation
`
`of
`
`fault
`
`supported
`
`the
`
`evidence
`
`is without
`
`basis.
`
`The
`
`court
`
`finds
`
`that
`
`there
`
`was
`
`a sufficient
`
`is not
`
`by
`
`evidentiary
`
`basis
`
`for
`
`the jury's
`
`determination
`
`as to the
`
`allocation
`
`of
`
`fault
`
`based
`
`on the
`
`evidence
`
`presented
`
`at
`
`trial,
`
`which
`
`allocated
`
`30 percent
`
`of
`
`the
`
`fault
`
`to Burnham.
`
`The
`
`next
`
`issue
`
`the
`
`court
`
`must
`
`address
`
`is whether
`
`the jury's
`
`award
`
`to Hillyer
`
`of
`
`$20,000,000
`
`for
`
`past
`
`pain
`
`and
`
`suffering
`
`from
`
`the
`
`onset
`
`of mesothelioma
`
`to the
`
`date
`
`of his
`
`death
`
`was
`
`excessive
`
`and
`
`if so, whether
`
`a new trial
`
`on the
`
`issue
`
`of damages
`
`should
`
`be ordered.
`
`The
`
`12
`
`
`
`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2018 03:17 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 450
`
`INDEX NO. 612982/2015
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2018
`
`standard
`
`to be applied
`
`is whether
`
`the
`
`award
`
`"deviates
`
`materially
`
`from
`
`what
`
`would
`
`be reasonable
`
`compensation."
`
`CPLR
`
`§5501
`
`(c).
`
`In order
`
`to determine
`
`whether
`
`the
`
`award
`
`was
`
`excessive,
`
`the
`
`court
`
`must
`
`compare
`
`the
`
`instant
`
`case with
`
`analogous
`
`cases with
`
`awards
`
`that
`
`have
`
`been
`
`previously
`
`upheld.
`
`See Donlon
`
`v. City
`
`of New York,
`
`284 A.D.2d
`
`13,
`
`18
`
`(IS"
`
`Dept
`
`2001).
`
`The most
`
`recent
`
`decision
`
`from
`
`the First
`
`Department
`
`addressing
`
`the
`
`issue
`
`of
`
`the
`
`amount
`
`of damages
`
`to be awarded
`
`case
`
`is Dummitt.
`
`In that
`
`in a mesothelioma
`
`case,
`
`the First
`
`Department
`
`upheld
`
`an award
`
`of past
`
`pain
`
`and
`
`suffering
`
`of $4.5 million
`
`and
`
`$3.5 million
`
`for
`
`future
`
`pain
`
`and
`
`suffering.
`
`It also
`
`upheld
`
`an award
`
`of past
`
`pain
`
`and
`
`suffering
`
`of $5.5 million
`
`and
`
`an award
`
`for
`
`future
`
`pain
`
`and
`
`suffering
`
`for
`
`$2.5 million.
`
`In other
`
`decisions,
`
`the First
`
`Department
`
`upheld
`
`an award
`
`of $1.5 million
`
`for
`
`past
`
`pain
`
`and
`
`suffering
`
`and
`
`$2 million
`
`for
`
`future
`
`pain
`
`and
`
`suffering
`
`(Penn
`
`v. Achem
`
`Products,
`
`85
`
`A.D.3d
`
`(IS'
`
`Dept
`
`and
`
`$3 million
`
`and
`
`$4.5 million
`
`(Matter
`
`475)
`
`2011)
`
`respectively
`
`of New York
`
`Ashestos
`
`Litig,
`
`Marshall,
`
`28 A.D.3d
`
`255)
`
`(1S' Dept
`
`2006).
`
`In the
`
`instant
`
`case,
`
`the jury
`
`awarded
`
`plaintiff
`
`$20,000,000
`
`for
`
`past
`
`pain
`
`and
`
`suffering
`
`from
`
`the
`
`date
`
`of diagnosis
`
`until
`
`the
`
`time
`
`of death.
`
`He
`
`started
`
`experiencing
`
`symptoms
`
`in March
`
`of 2012,
`
`he was
`
`diagnosed
`
`with
`
`mesothelioma
`
`in March
`
`2013
`
`and
`
`passed
`
`I
`away
`
`in September
`
`2014.
`
`During
`
`that
`
`period,
`
`he experienced
`
`severe
`
`pain;
`
`shortness
`
`of breath;
`
`great
`
`difficulty
`
`breathing;
`
`multiple
`
`thoracenteses;
`
`debilitating
`
`chemotherapy
`
`treatments;
`
`a radical
`
`pleurectomy;
`
`radiation;
`
`and
`
`pneumonia.
`
`Based
`
`on all
`
`the
`
`circumstances
`
`of Mr.
`
`Hillyer's
`
`injuries,
`
`the
`
`award
`
`of
`
`$20,000,000
`
`for
`
`past
`
`pain
`
`and
`
`suffering
`
`deviates
`
`materially
`
`from
`
`what
`
`would
`
`be reasonable
`
`compensation.
`
`Pursuant
`
`to CPLR
`
`5501
`
`(c),
`
`the
`
`award
`
`for
`
`past
`
`pain
`
`and
`
`suffering
`
`is vacated
`
`and
`
`a
`
`new trial
`
`ordered
`
`on the
`
`issue
`
`of damages
`
`unless
`
`plaintiff
`
`within
`
`30 days
`
`of
`
`service
`
`of a copy
`
`of
`
`this
`
`decision
`
`and
`
`order
`
`with
`
`notice
`
`of entry
`
`stipulates
`
`to reduce
`
`the
`
`award
`
`to $6 million.
`
`13
`
`
`
`FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 01/11/2018 03:17 PM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 450
`
`INDEX NO. 612982/2015
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/11/2018
`
`Accordingly,
`
`it
`
`is hereby
`
`ORDERED
`
`that
`
`the
`
`branches
`
`of Burnham's
`
`motion
`
`for
`
`a judgment
`
`notwithstanding
`
`the
`
`P
`
`verdict
`
`is denied;
`
`and
`
`it
`
`is further
`
`ORDERED
`
`that
`
`the
`
`portion
`
`of Burnham's
`
`motion
`
`to set aside
`
`the
`
`verdict
`
`is