Opinion
9959 Index 190240/17
10-15-2019
IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION Russell Leavitt, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. A.O. Smith Water Products Co., et al., Defendants, Rogers Corporation, Defendant–Appellant.
Goldberg Segalla, LLP, New York (Andrew J. Scholz of counsel), for Appellant. Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York (Jason P. Weinstein of counsel), for Respondents.
Goldberg Segalla, LLP, New York (Andrew J. Scholz of counsel), for Appellant.
Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York (Jason P. Weinstein of counsel), for Respondents.
Richter, J.P., Gische, Kapnick, Kern, Moulton, JJ.
Although the record before the court was not sufficient to warrant a finding of personal jurisdiction over defendant (cf. Mischel v. Safe Haven Enters. , LLC, 161 A.D.3d 696, 697, 74 N.Y.S.3d 496 [1st Dept. 2018] ), plaintiffs made a "sufficient start" in demonstrating such jurisdiction, and accordingly, jurisdictional discovery is warranted with respect to Rogers (see Avilon Auto. Group v. Leontiev , 168 A.D.3d 78, 89, 91 N.Y.S.3d 379 [1st Dept. 2019] ; Robins v. Procure Treatment Ctrs., Inc. , 157 A.D.3d 606, 607, 70 N.Y.S.3d 457 [1st Dept. 2018] ).
Additionally, Rogers failed to make a prima facie showing that its product could not have contributed to the causation of plaintiff's injury (see Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. , 123 A.D.3d 498, 499, 1 N.Y.S.3d 20 [1st Dept. 2014] ). Accordingly, that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly denied, without regard to the sufficiency of plaintiffs' papers in opposition (see Pullman v. Silverman , 28 N.Y.3d 1060, 1063, 43 N.Y.S.3d 793, 66 N.E.3d 663 [2016], citing Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr. , 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642 [1985] ).
We have considered Rogers's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.