October 23, 2021

Volume XI, Number 296

Advertisement
Advertisement

October 22, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 21, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 20, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

New York High Court Finds Expert Failed to Satisfy Causation Requirement

In a decision that reaffirms the importance of expert testimony, New York’s highest court ruled that a plaintiff’s expert had failed to establish either general or specific causation such that the plaintiff could withstand summary judgment. See Cornell v. 360 W. 51st Street Realty, LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 02096 (N.Y. March 27, 2014). The case arose out of a woman’s claim that exposure to dampness and mold in her apartment caused her to suffer a variety of physical symptoms, which eventually forced her out of her apartment. She filed suit against her landlord and other related entities, claiming personal injuries, property damage, and constructive eviction, among other causes of action.

Defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss all of Plaintiff’s claims, arguing that she was unable to prove that mold is capable of causing her kind of injuries (general causation) or caused her injuries (specific causation). The trial court agreed with Defendants but the intermediate appellate court reversed. The Court of Appeals applied the test established in Parker v. Mobil Oil Corp., et al., 7 N.Y.3d 434 (2006), which required an expert’s causation opinion to establish both general causation and specific causation in complex product liability and toxic tort matters.

First, the court held that Plaintiff did not establish that the scientific community generally accepted that mold could cause the kinds of adverse health effects that she suffered. The court further found that Plaintiff’s expert only showed an association, which does not necessarily mean a cause-and-effect relationship. Second, the court held that Plaintiff did not establish specific causation because Plaintiff’s expert had failed to make any effort to quantify Plaintiff’s exposure to mold, or to refute the opinion of Defendants’ expert that the mold was present at concentrations and distribution to be expected in a typical home.  

The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of Monisola O. Salaam in the preparation of this article.

© 2021 Beveridge & Diamond PC National Law Review, Volume IV, Number 214
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Daniel M. Krainin Environmental Litigation Attorney Beveridge & Diamond New York, NY
Principal

Dan deploys more than two decades of environmental litigation experience to resolve clients’ legal and business challenges.

Primarily focused on environmental and toxic tort litigation, Dan helps clients successfully resolve groundwater contamination, hazardous waste site remediation, natural resource damages, permit defense and product-related matters. He enjoys using his skills as a litigator to help clients solve environmental problems.

Among his many wins, Dan successfully led a team that defeated an emergency challenge to a permit that Dan’s client needed to continue its...

212-702 5417
Mackenzie S. Schoonmaker Environmental Litigation Attorney Beveridge & Diamond New York, NY
Principal

Mackenzie’s practice includes both litigation and regulatory matters arising under FIFRA, the Clean Water Act, and related environmental laws.

She is passionate about conserving air, water, wildlife, and land for future generations, and enjoys helping clients navigate and enforce the detailed framework of environmental law because she believes compliance is key to preventing adverse impacts to the environment.

Mackenzie is a co-chair of Beveridge & Diamond’s Industrial Hemp & Cannabis industry team. She advises clients, and regularly writes and presents, on federal...

212-702-5415
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement