Clark v. A.O. Smith Water Prods. (In re New York Cnty. Asbestos Litig.)

• Decision Date: 09 February 2012
• Citation: 937 N.Y.S.2d 853,92 A.D.3d 486,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 00915
• Parties: In re NEW YORK COUNTY ASBESTOS LITIGATIONKeith H. Clark, Plaintiff, v. A.O. Smith Water Products, et al., Defendants,Kentile Floors, Inc., et al., Defendants–Respondents.Joan M. Gasior, Non–Party Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 00915

92 A.D.3d 486

937 N.Y.S.2d 853

In re NEW YORK COUNTY ASBESTOS LITIGATIONKeith H. Clark, Plaintiff,

v.A.O. Smith Water Products, et al., Defendants,Kentile Floors, Inc., et al., Defendants–Respondents.Joan M. Gasior, Non–Party Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Feb. 9, 2012.

Ranni Law Firm, Florida (Joseph Ranni of counsel), for appellant.

McGivney & Kluger, New York (William D. Sanders of counsel), for respondents.

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered November 8, 2010, which granted defendants Kentile Floors, Inc., Courter & Company, Inc., the Fairbanks Company, and DAP, Inc.'s motion to disqualify appellant and the law firm of Napoli, Bern, Ripka LLP in this action and in Pastore v. A.O. Smith Water Products Co. (Index No. 190194/10) and Powell v. A.O. Smith Water Products Co. (Index No. 190198/10), unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.

The discontinuances in two of the actions and substitution of counsel in the other deprive appellant of any further controversy to have determined; there does not appear to be any exception to the mootness doctrine ( see Matter of Hearst Corp. v. Clyne, 50 N.Y.2d 707, 714–715, 431 N.Y.S.2d 400, 409 N.E.2d 876 [1980] ). If we were to address the merits, we would find that the motion court properly granted the motion in light of appellant's intimate familiarity with the moving defendants' settlement strategies.

TOM, J.P., SWEENY, ACOSTA, RENWICK, ROMÁN, JJ., concur.