Matter of New York County Asbestos Litig.

Annotate this Case
Matter of New York County Asbestos Litig. 2012 NY Slip Op 00915 Decided on February 9, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 9, 2012
Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, Renwick, Román, JJ.
190165/10 -5809

[*1]6780N & In re New York County Asbestos Litigation

Keith 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.






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 NY2d 707, 714-715 [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.
M-5809 - Clark v A.O. Smith Water Products, et al. Motion to supplement record or take judicial notice of certain documents denied.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: FEBRUARY 9, 2012

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.