New York City Asbestos Litigation, Matter of
| Decision Date | 11 February 1997 |
| Parties | , 678 N.E.2d 467 In the Matter of NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. Amelia MALTESE, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Mario Maltese, Appellant, v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP., Respondent. Savino STALLONE et al., Appellants, v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP., Respondent. (And another action.) |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division insofar as appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.
Mario Maltese and Savino Stallone were mechanics at Consolidated Edison Company's New York City powerhouses. Maltese worked at Con Edison's Hudson Avenue and Astoria powerhouses from 1951 through 1985. Stallone worked at the Hudson Avenue facility from 1946 until 1981. Both men contracted mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer, as a result of their exposure to, among other things, the dust generated by maintenance and repair of asbestos-insulated turbines that defendant Westinghouse Corporation had sold to Con Edison.
Plaintiff-appellants (Maltese's estate, Stallone and his wife) brought suit in Supreme Court seeking damages for their injuries from multiple defendants, including Westinghouse. The case was consolidated with several others, the jury finding Westinghouse 20% liable for plaintiffs' injuries. The jury further found that Westinghouse demonstrated reckless disregard for the safety of Maltese and Stallone--making the corporation jointly liable for plaintiffs' noneconomic damages (see, CPLR 1602[7])--and that an award of punitive damages against Westinghouse was appropriate. On Westinghouse's post-trial motion, the trial court set aside those portions of the verdict finding reckless disregard for the workers' safety and assessing punitive damages. Judgment was thereafter entered, and the Appellate Division affirmed.
We agree with the trial court and Appellate Division as to the finding of reckless disregard, concluding that no valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences could possibly lead rational people to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence presented at trial (Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dummitt v. Chesterton (In re N.Y.C. Asbestos Litig.)
...court's instruction on the recklessness exception deviated from the principles articulated in Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. , 89 N.Y.2d 955, 655 N.Y.S.2d 855, 678 N.E.2d 467 (1997). However, because Crane never objected to the terms of the disputed charge as given, it failed to pr......
-
Dummitt v. Chesterton (In re N.Y.C. Asbesos Litig.)
...court's instruction on the recklessness exception deviated from the principles articulated in Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. , 89 N.Y.2d 955, 655 N.Y.S.2d 855, 678 N.E.2d 467 (1997). However, because Crane never objected to the terms of the disputed charge as given, it failed to pr......
-
Dummitt v. Chesterton (In re N.Y.C. Asbestos Litig.)
...that harm would follow,' and has done so with conscious indifference to the outcome.” In re New York City Asbestos Litigation (Maltese), 89 N.Y.2d 955, 655 N.Y.S.2d 855, 678 N.E.2d 467 (1997) (quoting Saarinen v. Kerr, 84 N.Y.2d 494, 501 [1994] ). Here, the evidence showed the following: Cr......
-
In re Asbestos Litigation
...that harm would follow and has done so with conscious indifference to the outcome." In the Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation, 89 N.Y.2d 955, 956-57, 655 N.Y.S.2d 855, 678 N.E.2d 467 (1997). In the instant case, evidence was presented that Raymark was selling its products without w......