Tishman liquidating corporation

Kostantin was exposed to asbestos at the sites; and that the exposure to asbestos was the cause of his injury.

The jury further found that TLC exercised supervisory control over the drywall subcontractors using the asbestos containing joint compound; that TLC knew or should have known that its drywall subcontractors were using unsafe sanding methods with respect to the asbestos containing joint compound; that TLC failed to use reasonable care to prevent or correct the use of the asbestos containing joint compound, or to prevent and correct the unsafe sanding methods; and that these failures were a substantial factor in causing Mr. Moreover, as to the actions of TLC's employees, the jury also found that TLC created an unsafe condition by permitting its employees to sweep asbestos containing joint compound; that the failure to use reasonable care in sweeping was a substantial factor in causing Mr, Konstantin's injury; and that TLC acted with reckless disregard for the safety of Mr. The jury awarded plaintiff million for past pain and suffering; million for future pain and suffering; ,832 for past lost earnings; and 5,325 for future lost earnings, and apportioned 76% of the fault to TLC.

Konstantin was exposed to asbestos-containing joint compound from the work of subcontractors, citing Dept 2008); (ii) there was no evidence that TLC had any knowledge that the joint compound at the work site contained asbestos, and plaintiff's expert testimony did not establish such knowledge; (iii) plaintiff presented no evidence establishing that TLC's predecessor supervised and controlled the workplace; and (iv) plaintiff failed to proffer expert testimony establishing site safety requirements. Konstatin identified and that they contained asbestos, and that asbestos in joint compounds was not phased out until the mid-1970's (T. There was also evidence that a study of joint compounds done in 1974 and published in 1975 revealed that nine out often commercially available joint compounds contained asbestos in 1974 (T. Furthermore, there was no evidence establishing that the joint compounds used at the sites were part of the 10% not containing asbestos. Here, circumstantial evidence was presented from which the jury could have inferred that TLC knew, or that it should have known, that asbestos was used at the sites during the relevant periods and that it was unsafe. De Benedettis, the project site superintendent for Tishman Realty during the relevant period, testified that plasters containing asbestos were generally used at work sites by subcontractors employed by TLC's predecessor (T, at 2011-2012).

CPLR 4404(a) provides that "the court may set aside a verdict or any judgment entered thereon and direct that judgment be entered in favor of a party entitled to judgment as a matter of law or it may order a new trial . The standard used in determining a motion to set aside a verdict as against the weight of evidence is "whether the evidence so preponderated in favor of [the moving party] that the verdict could not have been reached on any fair interpretation of the evidence " at 499.

TLC argues that the court should have granted its motion for a directed verdict following the completion of plaintiffs' case as: (i) it was impossible for the jury to determine, as a matter of fact, that Mr. Moreover, plaintiffs' expert industrial hygienist, Richard Hatfield, testified that he tested the brands of joint compound that Mr.

The Chamber’s brief argues that the decision is at odds with black letter causation requirements, and could trigger yet another wave of asbestos lawsuits in California courts.

Earlier today, the New York State Court of Appeals upheld the million verdict for Ruby Konstantin.

Furthermore, if the releases were intended to apply to the general contractor, they could have referred to the general contractor by name or otherwise indicated such an intent. Strauchen both testified that asbestos exposure caused Mr.

Dept 2008) (trial court correctly found that the broker is a released party under unambiguous definition of "Agent" contained in the release). Konstantin to develop mesothelioma of the tunica vaginalis, a rare disease with approximately 224 reported cases.

Here, while there may be an issue as to whether the evidence was such that the jury could rationally infer that TLC exercised sufficient supervision and control over the work of the drywall subcontractors so as to give rise to liability under Labor Law § 200, this issue is not dispositive as TLC was responsible for the creation of an unsafe condition by its own employees who swept the asbestos containing joint compound. Moreover, the testimony of plaintiffs' medical experts, Dr. Jacqueline Moline, supports a finding of causation based on the sweeping of the asbestos containing joint compound. Markowitz testified that "[s]weeping of the debris containing asbestos in [Mr.

Konstatin's] immediate vicinity over a couple of year period on a daily or near daily basis ... Moline testified that "[t]here is no threshold that has been determined to be safe with respect to asbestos exposure and mesothelioma" even low doses of asbestos can cause mesothelioma; plaintiff's cumulative exposures to asbestos were substantial contributing factors which caused his mesothelioma; each of the occupational exposures described contributed to causing the disease; and "there's no way of separating them [the individual exposures] out" (T. And, the testimony of plaintiff's industrial hygienist, Mr.

TLC asserts that since its predecessor was an agent of the owners, the releases likewise apply to TLC and relieve TLC of any liability. First, TLC cannot show any prejudice resulting from the court's reserving decision on its motion. unless its terms expressly so provide." The purpose of the statute is "to eliminate the inequities existent under the common-law rule where a general release given to one wrongdoer discharged all others." Dept 1984) (internal citations omitted).

Furthermore, as plaintiff notes, the issue of the releases was not raised prior to trial and thus the redacted releases were not produced to the court until the trial was well under way. it does not discharge any of the other tortfeasors from liability for the injury. Although the statute has been "construed to require an express designation by name or other specific identification of which parties are intended to be released," 72 N.

Defendant Tishman Liquidating Corporation ("TLC ) moves pursuant to CPLR 4404 for an order setting aside the verdict entered against it on August 16, 2011, and directing that judgment be entered in its favor or, in the alternative, reducing the verdict. Plaintiff David Konstantin alleges that he was exposed to asbestos when he worked as a carpenter from 1975 to 1977, during new construction at 622 Third Avenue and the Olympic Towers, and that, as a result of this exposure, he developed mesothelioma of the tunica vaginalis.