Joseph Munna’s career as an auto mechanic lasted for decades, and apparently led to his eventual development of malignant mesothelioma. Following his diagnosis with the terminal disease, he filed a personal injury lawsuit seeking compensation from multiple companies, including Advance Auto, whose parts he says were contaminated with asbestos. Though Advance Auto filed a motion to have the case against them dismissed, their petition did not meet New York’s requirements for summary judgment: further, the judge hearing the case said it mischaracterized the victim’s testimony.
Mesothelioma Victim’s Testimony Mischaracterized by Auto Parts Company
When Mr. Munna provided testimony to support his mesothelioma claim, he indicated that Advance Auto was a supplier of asbestos-containing parts for every location he had worked at between the 1970s and 1990s. He described the work he had done, and recalled having seen the company’s delivery vehicles and their packaging. He did not specify any particular store location where he had worked or where they had been purchased from.
Despite this, Advance Auto’s petition to have the mesothelioma case dismissed was based on their argument that he had not been personally involved in the purchase of any of the parts. They further asserted that they did not operate stores in either Valley Stream, New York or Staten Island, New York during the years that he worked as a mechanic. These arguments were curious, as they had no connection to his testimony.
Judge Rules Asbestos Company’s Argument a Mischaracterization, Says It Falls Short of Requirements
In denying the company’s petition to have the mesothelioma case dismissed, Justice Adam Silvera of the Supreme Court of New York first noted the specific requirements that must be met for a summary judgment to succeed, noting that the company had failed to meet this initial burden. He then went on to say that their motion had “relied solely upon a mischaracterization of plaintiff’s consistent and unequivocal testimony regarding their products.”
The judge noted that the mesothelioma victim’s testimony had established that he had not been responsible for ordering parts in his capacity as a mechanic, and that this had no bearing on whether he had been exposed to asbestos from his work with those parts. The judge also said that it was clear that he had never identified stores currently located in the cities raised by the defendant as the only possible sources of the parts he had worked with. The case will move forward for a jury to hear.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma, the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net are here to help. Call us today at 1-800-692-8608.
