Tishman liquidating corp

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered April 15, 2014 (the April Order), which modified Section XVII of the New York City Asbestos Litigation Case Management Order, as amended May 26, 2011, to allow punitive damages claims to proceed, and denied defendants' motion to vacate and declare inapplicable the Case Management Order, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of deleting the second sentence from the first decretal paragraph, remanding the matter to the Coordinating Justice for a determination of procedural protocols on the issue of punitive damages, staying implementation of the modified order until such a determination is made, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.Appeal from an interim order, same court and Justice, entered May 8, 2014, which partially stayed the application of the April order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic. CAL), the Case Management Order (CMO) was amended in 1996 by the Coordinating Justice to add section XVII which provides that “Counts for punitive damages are deferred until such time as the Court deems otherwise, upon notice and hearing” (emphasis added).Appeal from an order, same court and Justice, entered December 18, 2014, which, to the extent appealable, denied defendants' motions to renew the April Order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as abandoned. In April 2013, all plaintiffs jointly moved to modify Section XVII to read: “Plaintiffs are permitted to seek punitive damages against defendants upon application to the assigned Trial Court.” The NYCAL defendants jointly opposed the motion and moved to vacate and declare inapplicable the CMO, asserting, inter alia, that the CMO could not be amended without their consent.In July 2013, six NYCAL plaintiffs moved for permission to allege punitive damages claims and proffer related evidence against the defendants in their cases. Y.2d 349 [1998] ), the parties to the NYCAL are involved in an actual dispute in New York Courts, and the April Order did not give advice, it set parameters for that litigation. The April Order deprives defendants of their rights to due process by leaving them guessing, until the close of evidence at trial, whether or not punitive damages will be sought.Mc Elroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP, New York (Joseph La Sala of counsel), for A. Smith Water Products Company, Tuthill Corp., Stewart Warner Corporation, Invensys Systems, Inc., Robertshaw Controls Company, Benjamin Moore & Company, Baker Perkins, Inc., Lipe Automation Corporation, Eaton Corporation, Rockwell Automation, Inc., Flowserve U. Inc., Edward Valves, Nordstrom Valves, Edward Vogt Valves, Burnham LLC, and Exxon Mobil Corporation, appellants. Mc Cann, New York, for Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc., appellants.

Y.), Lincoln Electric Products, Elixir Industries, Eckel Industries, AII, Acquisition (Holland Furnace), Serge Elevators, Approval Oil of Brooklyn, Simplex Wire, Bergen Industrial, J.Tamasco of counsel), for Fort Kent Holdings, Inc., appellant.Steptoe & Johnson LLP, New York (Shehzad Hasan of counsel), for Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, appellant. Emery of counsel), for Georgia–Pacific LLC, appellant. Fanning of counsel), for Ajax Electric Company, Allied Building Products Corp., AWC 1997 Corporation, Burnham LLC, David Fabricators Of N. Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Erik C. Brennan of counsel) for Cleaver–Brooks, Inc., appellant.

Leave a Reply