Walker v ABB, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Walker v ABB, Inc. 2012 NY Slip Op 32046(U) July 26, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 190433/11 Judge: Sherry Klein Heitler Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: w PART i 30 INDEX NO. HON. mFRRY KI F 1q05b3jll - Index Number : 190433/2011 WALKER, MURRAY N. SR. vs. MOTION DATE ABB - SEQUENCE NUMBER : 003 SUMMARY JUDGMENT ! o .". " " . v m m * "0 MOTION SEQ. NO. 00 0O-3 , were read on this motlon tonor The following papera, numbered 1 to Notlcs of MotlonlOrder to Show C i u r s -Affldavlte - Exhibib IN O W . INO(@). INo@). An8WOdng Affldavlts - Exhibits Replying Affldavlta Upon the foregoing papers, It I ordered that this motion I s s is decided in accordance with the memorandum decision dated 7<&. (> NEW YORK COUNTV CLERK'S OFFICE Dated: 1. CHECK ONE: 7-24 -& ..................................................................... 2. CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: .......................... 3. CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: .MOTION IS: J.S.C. EJN HEITLER 0 CASE DISPOSED GRANTED ................................................0SEfTLE ORDER DO NOT POST ~NON-FINAL DISPOSITION DENIED 0GRANTED IN PART [7 OTHER SUBMIT ORDER FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE [* 2] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 30 ______________________________-___--___-__ X MURRAY N.WALKER, SR. and BARBARA WALKER, Index No. 190433/11 Motion Seq. 003 DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiffs, -against- FILED ABB, INC., et al., Defendants. X NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK S OFFICE SHERRY KLEIN HEITLER, J.: In this asbestos-related personal injury action, defendant Reichhold Chemicals ( Reichhold ) moves pursuant to CPLR 32 12 for summaryjudgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims against it on the ground that plaintiffs have presented no evidence of exposure to any Reichold products. Thus, the defendant argues there are no genuine triable issues of fact with regard to plaintiff Murray Walker s exposure to asbestos. Plaintiffs oppose the motion as premature on the ground that discovery in this matter is not complete. Plaintiffs further contend that a jury could reasonably infer, based on the record now before the court, that h/r;.. Walker was exposed to asbestos from a Reichhold product. Plaintiffs commenced this action on or about October 2 1,20 11. The complaint alleges that Mr. Walker developed mesothelioma fiom his exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured or sold by the named defendants. On or about November 14,201 1, plaintiffs amended their complaint to add Reichhold as a defendant. Mr. Walker was deposed over the course of eight days beginning on November 20,201 1, -1- [* 3] which Reichold attended. His deposition was not completed due to l i s failing health. Mr. Walker died on December 27,201 1. During such eight-day period Mr. Walker testified extensively about his exposure to asbestos-containing products. Relevant to Mr. Walker s testimony that he installed electrical panel boards, plaintiffs assert such panel boards contained both asbestos blocks and phenolic plastic compounds that utilized asbestos as a filler material. On or about October 19,2012, plaintiffs counsel served answers to standard interrogatories which indicate that Mr. Walker was exposed to asbestos while working as an electrician from approximately 1952-1987 at various locations throughout Maine, New York, and New Jersey. Reichhold does not dispute that it manufactured asbestos-containing products to be fit on the kinds of electrical panel boards on whch Mr. Walker claims to have worked. Reichhold argues, however, that there is no specific evidence linking its products to any of the panel boards used by Mr. Walker, which he testified were manufactwed by General Electric, Westinghouse, and Square D. As it does not appear that Mr. Walker specifically named Reichhold in his testimony, it is on t h s ground that Reichhold has moved for summary judgment. While conceding this point, plaintiffs nevertheless contend that whether Reichhold was a source of Mr. Walker s exposure must be sought through further discovery. In this regard, the record shows that Reichhold has not produced discovery in this case, including its relevant sales records, which it claims to have transferred to another company called BTL in connection with Reichhold s sale of its phenolic molding compound division in 1986. To date, Reichhold has not provided any specific 1 The defendant did not provide the court with a copy of Mr. Walker s deposition. However, the record contains portions of his deposition transcript, submitted as plaintiffs exhibit A. -2- [* 4] information regarding this sale, i.e., whether it was an asset or entity purchase and/or whether BTL assumed Reichhold s asbestos-related tort liabilities. In addition, plaintiffs claim they are in the process of scheduling the deposition of several fact witnesses, including one of Mr. Walker s former co-workers, who due to his own health issues has not yet been able to be deposed. Reichhold asserts that even if it supplied phenolic molding compounds to General Electric, Westinghouse, or Square D, there is no m o u n t of further discovery that could possibly show whether it supplied those materials during the relevant time period, that these particular manufacturers used Reichhold s products in their electrical panel boxes, or that the plaintiff worked on and was exposed to asbestos from his work with such equipment. Reichhold s argument in this respect is incongruous given its failure to comply with plaintiffs discovery requests. Before this court addresses this summary judgment motion on the merits, plaintiffs are entitled to use the discovery mechanisms provided by the Civil Practice Law and Rules and the New York City Asbestos Litigation ( NYCAL ) Case Management Order ( CMO ) to inquire into, among other things, how the sale of Reichold s phenolic molding compound division was executed, whether or not it was an asset purchase, whether the buyer or the seller retained liabilities, and in whose custody, possession and control the relevant sales records are reposed. See CPLR 3212(f); see generally Watson v Work Wear Corp., 202 AD2d 23 1 (1 st Dept 1994). Reichhold s reliance upon Prestige Decorating and Wallcovering,Inc. v US.Fire Insurance Co., 49 AD3d 406 (1 st Dept ZOOS), among other cases, is misplaced. Plaintiffs desire to fully understand Reichhold s alleged asset sale to BTL does not amount to a fishing expedition. Indeed, the composition and consequences of that transaction may well dictate the -3- [* 5] outcome of this motion. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Reichhold Chemicals' motion for summary judgment is denied without prejudice to renew upon completion of discovery. Plaintiffs are directed to submit demands for those items they contend are still outstanding to counsel for Reichhold within 20 days of service upon Reichhold of this decision and order with notice of entry. Any issues which may arise with respect to such discovery demands shall be raised in the first instance with the N Y C A L Special Master in accordance with the CMO. This constitutes the decision and order of the court. "'"F L E D I NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE -4- . . .

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.