Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995

Salerno v. Garlock Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 23, 1995

212 A.D.2d 463; 622 N.Y.S.2d 946; 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2100

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
O'Connor v. Aerco International, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Berkowitz v. A.C. & S., Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Ronsini v. Garlock, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Millerman v. Georgia Pacific Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
Petteys v. Georgia Pacific Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
Caccamo v. Garlock, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
Lloyd v. W.R. Grace & Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
Comeau v. W.R. Grace & Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered August 4, 1994, which denied defendant Rapid-American Corporation’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Issues of fact exist that preclude summary judgment, including whether plaintiff was exposed to asbestos products manu*464factured by defendant’s predecessor (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557). In drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought, a reasonable trier of fact could find that plaintiff worked in the vicinity of where the products of defendant’s predecessor were being used, and that he was exposed to defendant’s product (see, In re Brooklyn Navy Yard Asbestos Litig., 971 F2d 831, 837 [2d Cir]).

Cawein v Flintkote Co. (203 AD2d 105) and Diel v Flintkote Co. (204 AD2d 53) are not contrary, since, in both of those cases, we noted that there was no showing that opened packages of defendant Flintkote’s asbestos were placed in the zone of those plaintiffs’ exposure (supra, at 106; supra, at 54). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Kupferman, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.