Proctor v. Alcoa, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Proctor v. Alcoa, Inc.

125 A.D.3d 447, 999 N.Y.S.2d 740

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 2015

Docket14153 190040/13

StatusPublished

This text of 125 A.D.3d 447 (Proctor v. Alcoa, Inc.) 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

Proctor v. Alcoa, Inc., 125 A.D.3d 447, 999 N.Y.S.2d 740 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered July 1, 2014, which denied the motion of defendant Andal Corp. (Andal) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record presents triable issues of fact as to whether Andal’s alleged predecessors-in-interest performed certain construction work at the former World Trade Center site, and were responsible for plaintiffs exposure to asbestos at the site (see generally Vega v Restani Constr. Corp., 18 NY3d 499, 503 [2012]). Although plaintiff failed to identify any entity that used asbestos during the period that he worked at the site in 1970, he submitted sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Andal’s alleged predecessors-in-interest were present during that period and used an asbestos product in the area in which plaintiff worked.

We have considered Andal’s remaining arguments, and find them unavailing. Concur — Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Feinman, Clark and Kapnick, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2014 NY Slip Op 31700(U).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered July 1, 2014, which denied the motion of defendant Andal Corp. (Andal) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record presents triable issues of fact as to whether Andal’s alleged predecessors-in-interest performed certain construction work at the former World Trade Center site, and were responsible for plaintiffs exposure to asbestos at the site (see generally Vega v Restani Constr. Corp., 18 NY3d 499, 503 [2012]). Although plaintiff failed to identify any entity that used asbestos during the period that he worked at the site in 1970, he submitted sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Andal’s alleged predecessors-in-interest were present during that period and used an asbestos product in the area in which plaintiff worked.

We have considered Andal’s remaining arguments, and find them unavailing. Concur — Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Feinman, Clark and Kapnick, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2014 NY Slip Op 31700(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A.D.3d 447, 999 N.Y.S.2d 740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/proctor-v-alcoa-inc-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack