Jurisdiction:  Supreme Court of New York, New York County

Plaintiff Lita Goldstein was diagnosed in March 2022 with mesothelioma.  She initiated a suit against several defendants in May 2022, including Kolmar Laboratories Inc. Kolmar moved for summary judgment on two points. First, it argued plaintiff failed to establish she was exposed to any asbestos-containing product manufactured by Kolmar.  Second, Kolmar argued that any such product it had manufactured was done so per the specifications of Johnson & Johnson and as such, Kolmar could not be liable. 

Plaintiff opposed and noted Kolmar previously confirmed its manufacturing role in the product at issue as well as its active role in manufacturing said product.  Additionally, plaintiff’s experts proffered exposure evidence regarding asbestos in the products at issue and contended Kolmar could be held liable for manufacturing such products despite its status as a contractor. Kolmar again asserted that it was “only a backup manufacturer for the product at issue” and further, plaintiff failed to prove she used any product specifically manufactured by Kolmar.  Goldstein v. Chanel, Inc., 2024 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3726, *2.

The court noted summary judgment is a drastic remedy and should only be granted in the event the moving party sufficiently establishes it is warranted as a matter of law.  See Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 58 NY2d 320, 324 (1986).  Critically, “The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgement as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material issues of fact from the case.”  Winegrad v. New York University Medical Center, 64 NY2d 851, 853 (1985). In addition, it stated summary judgment was not warranted when a defendant simply argued the plaintiff could not affirmatively prove causation as opposed to affirmatively proving as matter of law that there was no causation.  See Dyer v. Amchem Products, Inc., 207 AD3d 408, 409 (1st Dept. 2022). 

The court determined Kolmar’s argument focused on plaintiff’s evidence and lack of certainty as to the proportion of the productsused and actually manufactured by the defendant and failed to proffer any evidence of its own. In addition, conflicting evidence existed as to Kolmar’s involvement with the product at issue, as well as Kolmar’s admission that it produced talcum powder during the period of plaintiff’s exposure. Kolmar thus failed to “establish that its product could not have contributed to the causation of plaintiff’s injury.”  Reid v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 212 AD2d 462, 463 (1st Dept. 1995).  Accordingly, the court denied Kolmar’s motion in its entirety.

Read the full decision here.