In June 2026, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani’s New York Toxic Tort Team, led by Virginia Squitieri and Erik DiMarco, obtained the first summary judgment dismissal for a cosmetic talc defendant in NYCAL before the Honorable Eric Schumacher, which was briefed by David Oxamendi, Mohammad Haque, and Michael Hallam and decided on the papers. Just over a month later, the team did it again, securing another NYCAL summary judgment victory on causation, this time in a case involving alleged exposure from elevators.
This case involved a pleural mesothelioma claimant who alleged asbestos exposure through his work on boilers, HVAC units, and elevators during the 1980s through the 2000s. GRSM moved for summary judgment primarily on causation, while also targeting claims barred by workers’ compensation, the statute of limitations, and New York’s loss of consortium law. Before oral argument, the plaintiff stipulated to dismiss all non-causation claims, leaving specific causation as the sole issue before the Court.
Erik DiMarco argued the motion before Justice Schumacher. After DiMarco systematically presented the evidence establishing the client’s prima facie entitlement to summary judgment, the plaintiff ultimately conceded on the record that GRSM’s client had met its burden. The argument then turned to the plaintiff’s evidence in opposition and whether that evidence was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact on specific causation.
The central dispute focused on the plaintiff’s certified industrial hygienist opinion, his purported “dose assessment” of exposure, and its application to the alleged exposure from the claims to be associated with GRSM’s client. While the plaintiff maintained their expert’s opinion was sufficient to establish a question of fact, the GRSM team argued that the opinion was devoid of proper substance and methodology and was solely conclusory in nature.
The Court, issuing a verbal opinion from the bench shortly following completion of oral argument, held that the plaintiff’s expert opinion was legally insufficient as a matter of law. The Court granted summary judgment on all remaining causes of action and all cross-claims asserted against the firm’s client.