Miller v. Akron Paint & Varnish, Inc.
Opinion of the Court
In a mari
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The court properly dismissed the plaintiff’s second amended complaint (see, Miller v John A. Keeffe, P. C., 164 AD2d 933). That complaint failed to allege specifically how the exposure of the plaintiff’s decedent to benzene and benzene-containing products led to his death from lymphoma. Moreover, that complaint was deficient in failing to specify the brands of benzene and benzene-containing products to which the decedent was exposed (see, DaSilva v American Tobacco Co., 175 Misc 2d 424; Cresser v American Tobacco Co., 174 Misc 2d 1).
Furthermore, it cannot be said that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint for a third time (see, Duffy v Bass & DAllesandro, 245 AD2d 333). Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Sullivan and Altman, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.