DeChantal v. Harco, LLC, Index No. 900261/2015 (Sup.Ct. Albany Cty. 2016)

A Complaint alleging asbestos injury has been dismissed as against one of numerous defendants where plaintiff failed “to adequately identify a specific asbestos containing product manufactured, delivered, distributed or supplied by the defendant … which exposed the plaintiff to asbestos fibers.”

Plaintiff claimed that he had been injured by exposure to asbestos containing materials (“ACM”) in heat shields, electrical connectors, grommets and gaskets. However, the plaintiff never specifically identified the defendant in connection with certain test cells he claimed to have entered where aircraft engines were being tested.

The defendant showed that its product could not have contributed to causation of plaintiff’s injury, by establishing that plaintiff did not identify its product in interrogatory responses, or at his deposition, and generally was unable to prove that he encountered any of its products, or that these products, if any, exposed him to asbestos containing materials.

Documents submitted in opposition to the motion had no probative value, because they related to a completely different corporate entity, producing a completely different airplane engine.

Abrams Gorelick partner Glenn A. Jacobson and associate James E. Kimmel represented the defendant and briefed and argued the motion.