Klopsis v. A.O. Smith Water Products Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Klopsis v. A.O. Smith Water Products Co.

16 A.D.3d 125, 791 N.Y.S.2d 30, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2192

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 3, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 125 (Klopsis v. A.O. Smith Water Products Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Klopsis v. A.O. Smith Water Products Co., 16 A.D.3d 125, 791 N.Y.S.2d 30, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2192 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered on or about August 25, 2004, which denied defendant Goodyear’s motion for summary judgment, and order, same court and Justice, entered November 22, 2004, which granted Goodyear’s motion to reargue but adhered to the prior ruling, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to Goodyear’s contentions, the deposition testimony of a deceased plaintiff in another action was admissible in opposition to its motion for summary judgment (see generally State of New York v Metz, 241 AD2d 192 [1998]). This testimony was sufficient to defeat the motion because it offered facts and [126]*126conditions from which Goodyear’s liability could reasonably be inferred. In particular, it showed that the deponent had worked on at least one of the same ships as plaintiff during the period of his alleged exposure to asbestos fibers, and his testimony placed the use of asbestos gasket material in the area where plaintiff worked and identified the brand associated with Goodyear’s product as one of the brands in use on the ships at the time. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered on or about August 25, 2004, which denied defendant Goodyear’s motion for summary judgment, and order, same court and Justice, entered November 22, 2004, which granted Goodyear’s motion to reargue but adhered to the prior ruling, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to Goodyear’s contentions, the deposition testimony of a deceased plaintiff in another action was admissible in opposition to its motion for summary judgment (see generally State of New York v Metz, 241 AD2d 192 [1998]). This testimony was sufficient to defeat the motion because it offered facts and [126]*126conditions from which Goodyear’s liability could reasonably be inferred. In particular, it showed that the deponent had worked on at least one of the same ships as plaintiff during the period of his alleged exposure to asbestos fibers, and his testimony placed the use of asbestos gasket material in the area where plaintiff worked and identified the brand associated with Goodyear’s product as one of the brands in use on the ships at the time. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 125, 791 N.Y.S.2d 30, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/klopsis-v-ao-smith-water-products-co-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack