McGivney & Kluger, P.C.
is pleased to announce that:
 
Jamie Bartolomeo-Cooper - New York, NY
Caitlin Christie - Florham Park, NJ
Jennifer Hally - Florham Park, NJ
  Matthew Sampar - New York, NY
William Sanders - Florham Park, NJ
Paul Sunshine - Wilmington, DE
Carol Tempesta - New York, NY
 
have been named as Partners.

 We are also pleased to announce that Susan Charters (New York, NY) formerly of Kardaras & Kelleher has joined the firm as a Partner.
 

On December 5, 2012,  McGivney & Kluger, PC Partner and Director of our New York Asbestos Department, Kerryann M. Cook, co-chaired Perrin Conferences’ Women in Litigation & Business: Strategy to Successfully Advance Your Career and Grow Your Practice.  This conference was held at the JW Marriott Essex House in New York, New York.
 
 Covered agenda topics included:

• Growing Your Business, Managing Your Career;
• Negotiation Skills: How to Control the Situation;
• The Next Generation of Successful Business Women; and
• Strategies to Grow Your Network

Ms. Cook’s participation at this event included a discussion of her views on Growing Your Business, Managing Your Career while McGivney & Kluger’s Managing Partner of our Florida office, Leila M. Lugo, discussed Strategies to Grow Your Network. 

 We are pleased to announce that McGivney & Kluger, PC Counsel William Sanders spoke at the National Business Institute’s seminar on “Dirty Litigation Tactics: How to Deal with the ‘Rambo’ Litigator.”  This September 27, 2012, event was held at the Ramada Plaza Hotel in Newark, New Jersey.

The seminar included distinguished trial lawyers who discussed real-world ways to defeat the unethical practices of opposing counsel. Mr. Sanders specifically discussed effective remedies that can be used to combat the “Rambo” litigator.

In addition to Mr. Sanders, this event included featured speakers Michael Martino of Stein, McGuire, Pantages & Gigl, LLP, Scott Piekarsky of Piekarsky & Associates, LLC, and Louis Ruprecht of Ruprecht Hart Weeks & Ricciardulli, LLP.

This was a CLE accredited seminar for New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania. 

McGivney & Kluger, P.C. Partner, Eric Gernant recently obtained summary judgment in Steele v. Quad Graphics, Inc.  The plaintiff in this case alleged he developed end stage renal disease from exposure to toluene from shop towels used to clean printing presses. Quad Graphics, one of the world’s largest printing press companies, hired plaintiff’s employer to launder these shop towels.  The Court originally granted a motion to exclude three of the four experts plaintiffs were relying on but refused to grant summary judgment.   The plaintiff was permitted to maintain the last count of the complaint for negligence even though both safety experts were excluded.  The decision can be found at Steele v. Aramark Corp., et al, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43429 (D.N.J. 2012).
 
Not satisfied with the Court’s refusal to dismiss the case, a motion for reconsideration was filed.  Mr. Gernant argued that under New Jersey law a toxic tort case could not go to a jury without expert evidence that the plaintiff was exposed to levels of toluene above normal background levels.   The Court agreed and reversed its initial decision.  Without an expert testifying as to plaintiff’s level of exposure, plaintiff could not prove Quad Graphics was negligent.  Consequently, summary judgment was entered for Quad Graphics.  This decision can be found at Steele v. Aramark Corp., et al., 2012 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 132206 (D.N.J. 2012).
 

On July 11, 2012, Justice Sherry Heitler, the presiding judge of the New York City Asbestos Litigation (“NYCAL”) granted M&K client Tishman Liquidating Corporation’s motion for summary judgment in the Szamatulski matter. The case involved a 79 year old mesothelioma claimant represented by the law firm of Early & Strauss. Tishman was represented by M&K counsel Kerryann Cook and Nicole Wesselmann. 

Plaintiff served in the U.S. Navy as a fireman and later worked as a union plumber. For the purposes of the motion, plaintiff worked during the new construction of numerous powerhouses and commercial sites in the New York City area. Plaintiff claimed, among other things, that he was exposed to asbestos from the work of pipefitters applying asbestos containing materials to pipes in his vicinity. Plaintiff identified the entity that was performing this work. In addition, plaintiff identified the entity he believed was the general contractor for a few specifics sites.

In this regard, during his deposition, plaintiff identified “Tishman and/or Turner” as the general contractor of a building in the Upper East Side neighborhood of New York City. Plaintiff alleged that Tishman Liquidating was the successor to Tishman Realty & Construction. Further, plaintiff alleged Tishman Realty & Construction, and not Turner, was the general contractor at the site in question. Plaintiffs’ counsel relied upon documents that established Tishman Realty & Construction was the general contractor during new construction of the building at issue.

In granting Tishman Liquidating’s motion, the court reasoned that even if “Tishman” was the general contractor on the site, plaintiffs’ did not carry its burden, at the summary judgment stage, to establish any dispute existed whether Tishman “supervised or controlled” the activity that gave rise to plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos. The court went on to reaffirm prior case law that held “the mere presence of a representative of a general contract…does not render the contractor liable.” This finding is in line with the case law that we have developed over the years for our various contractor related defendants in the NYCAL. See Ross v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 505 (1993); Hughes v. Tishman Constr. Corp., 40 AD3d 305, 206 (1st Dep’t. 2007); see also Matthews v A.C. & S, Index No. 118368/01 (Sup. Ct NY Cty. Dec. 6, 2002, Freedman, J.). The court was silent with respect to any successor related issues.