Jurisdiction: New York City Asbestos Litigation
In September 2024, Gerard Donato (decedent) and wife Shelley Donato (plaintiffs collectively) commenced a New York City Asbestos Litigation action following the decedent’s mesothelioma diagnosis. Decedent alleged he was exposed to asbestos-containing materials from multiple door-gasket replacements on Vulcan ovens in the restaurant he operated from 1982 to 2016.
Defendants Hobart Corporation and ITW Food Equipment Group, LLC (defendants collectively) moved for summary judgment arguing that plaintiff failed to identify a Vulcan oven that contained asbestos and causation.
During his deposition, Mr. Donato testified he replaced his existing Vulcan ovens with new “heavy range duty” Vulcan ovens every five to 10 years while running his restaurant. He also stated he would replace the oven-door insulating gaskets “every so often.”
Defendants contended the heavy-duty ranges did not contain door gaskets in the first place, let alone asbestos door gaskets. They also argued that even if Mr. Donato had been present for the removal of asbestos gaskets, such exposure would be insufficient to cause or contribute to the development of mesothelioma. According to defendants, decedent’s cumulative exposure to asbestos from changing door gaskets would be less than 1 percent of his cumulative exposure to ambient levels of asbestos.
Defendants relied upon an affirmation from their agency compliance and product safety manager. His affirmation stated the Vulcan heavy-duty series range did not have a door gasket and that Vulcan discontinued the use of any asbestos-containing parts in its heavy-duty range in January 1980, prior to Mr. Donato’s alleged exposure. In response, plaintiffs pointed to shortcomings in the affirmation including the fact the affirmant did not have access to all historical product documentation. As such, the court found genuine issues of material fact as to product identification.
Regarding causation, both parties relied upon their respective expert witnesses. On general causation, the court found that defendants established as a matter of law that chrysotile dust is a weak human pleural carcinogen and that exposure from encapsulated chrysotile-containing gaskets falls within the current permissive range and thus not causative of mesothelioma. Nevertheless, it determined plaintiffs succeeded in raising genuine issues of material fact that all asbestos fibers, including chrysotile fibers, are capable of causing mesothelioma.
Despite this finding, the court ruled plaintiffs failed to raise genuine issues of material fact as to specific causation. In doing so the court relied upon its decision in Evans v. Air & Liquid Sys. Corp., where it found the plaintiff’s experts failed to demonstrate that plaintiff’s exposure as to a specific product exceeded the established causative threshold. (Sup Ct, NY County, June 9, 2026, Schumacher, J., index no. 190260/20245As.)
As such, the court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint and cross claims against them.