Tronlone v. Lac d'Amiante Du Quebec, Ltee
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Appellant argues that the law of New Jersey, and not that of New York, with respect to the sufficiency of a plaintiff’s showing of product identification and exposure in an asbestos case, is applicable to the instant facts. However, we perceive no relevant conflict between the laws of New Jersey and New York as they bear upon these issues (compare James v Bessemer Processing Co., Inc., 155 NJ 279, 714 A2d 898, and In re Brooklyn Navy Yard Asbestos Litig., 971 F2d 831, 837), and, accordingly, a choice of law analysis is unnecessary (see Elson v Defren, 283 AD2d 109, 114). Under the relevant…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1957
- Andre v. PomeroyNew York Court of Appeals · 1974
- Shaw v. Time-Life RecordsNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- James v. Bessemer Processing Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1998
- Elson v. DefrenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- International Business Machines Corporation v. Liberty Mutual Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2004
- Finance One Public Company Limited v. Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2005
- Starr Indem. & Liab. Co. v. Brightstar Corp.District Court, S.D. Illinois · 2019
- Elmaliach v. Bank of China Ltd.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Tyco International, Ltd. v. KozlowskiDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2010
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.