Opinion
01-26-2017
In re NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION Susan Krok as Administratrix for the Estate of Raymond J. Krok, Sr., etc., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. AERCTO International, Inc., et al., Defendants, The Nash Engineering Company, Defendant–Appellant.
McGivney & Kluger, P.C., New York (Kerryann M. Cook of counsel), for appellant. Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York (Chris Romanelli of counsel), for respondent.
McGivney & Kluger, P.C., New York (Kerryann M. Cook of counsel), for appellant.
Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York (Chris Romanelli of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered April 12, 2016, which denied defendant Nash Engineering Company's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.Defendant failed to establish prima facie that plaintiff's decedent could not have been exposed to its products or the asbestos contained therein (see Koulermos v. A.O. Smith Water Prods., 137 A.D.3d 575, 27 N.Y.S.3d 157 [1st Dept.2016] ). Its reliance on the decedent's inability to identify its product as a source of his exposure to asbestos is misplaced (see id.; Salerno v. Garlock Inc., 212 A.D.2d 463, 622 N.Y.S.2d 946 [1st Dept.1995] ). In any event, plaintiffs raised an issue of fact by submitting evidence that defendant's asbestos-containing pumps were present on the ship to which the decedent was assigned as a boiler tender fireman.
FRIEDMAN, J.P., RICHTER, SAXE, MOSKOWITZ, KAPNICK, JJ., concur.