NY High Court Gives OK for 9/11 Cleanup Crews to Sue Over Asbestos Exposure
The state's Court of Appeals ruled that the Battery Park City Authority is a government entity and didn't have legal standing to challenge Jimmy Nolan's Law, a 2009 state law that gave workers who toiled in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center towers on 9/11, an extra year to file claims against the authority.
November 22, 2017 at 05:23 PM
8 minute read
FILE – In this Sept. 11, 2001, file photo the twin towers of the World Trade Center burn behind the Empire State Building in New York after terrorists crashed two planes into the towers causing both to collapse. (AP Photo/Marty Lederhandler).
ALBANY—The state's highest court on Tuesday gave a group of Sept. 11 cleanup workers the green light to file asbestos-related lawsuits in federal court.
In a unanimous decision, No. 119, the state's Court of Appeals ruled that the Battery Park City Authority is a government entity and didn't have legal standing to challenge Jimmy Nolan's Law, a 2009 state law that gave workers who toiled in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center towers on Sept. 11, 2001, an extra year to file claims against the authority.
The cleanup workers argued that they have developed respiratory illnesses related to the asbestos cleanup at properties owned by Battery Park City Authority, including Ground Zero. The workers claimed that the authority failed to ensure their safety.
Meanwhile, the Battery Park City Authority argued that the state law extending the filing time was unconstitutional, and that the workers' claims should be dismissed.
The Battery Park City Authority challenged the state law extending the filing deadline and in 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that the new state law was an “extreme use of legislative power.” The cleanup workers then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, but before the circuit court could take up their appeal, the state's top court, the Court of Appeals, had to determine whether the Battery Park City Authority and other public benefit corporations have legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of a state law.
The state Court of Appeals' decision means that the Battery Park City Authority loses the ability to challenge Jimmy Nolan's Law, and the workers who toiled on the pile can pursue their asbestos claims in federal court.
Associate Judge Paul Feinman said in his opinion that a claim-revival statute “will satisfy the due process clause of the state constitution if it was enacted as a reasonable response in order to remedy an injustice.”
Chief Judge Janet DiFiore and Associate Judges Jenny Rivera, Leslie Stein, Eugene Fahey and Michael Garcia concurred with Feinman's opinion. Rivera concurred in her own opinion, as did Associate Judge Rowan Wilson.
The appellants were represented by Gregory Cannata of Gregory J. Cannata & Associates, a personal injury law firm, and Luke Nikas, a partner at Boies Schiller Flexner.
In an email, Nikas said, “We're pleased that our clients—who sacrificed their health and safety to clean up the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks—will finally have the opportunity to pursue their claims and get the justice they deserve.”
Daniel Connolly, a managing partner at Bracewell, represented the Battery Park City Authority. He did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
FILE – In this Sept. 11, 2001, file photo the twin towers of the World Trade Center burn behind
ALBANY—The state's highest court on Tuesday gave a group of Sept. 11 cleanup workers the green light to file asbestos-related lawsuits in federal court.
In a unanimous decision, No. 119, the state's Court of Appeals ruled that the Battery Park City Authority is a government entity and didn't have legal standing to challenge Jimmy Nolan's Law, a 2009 state law that gave workers who toiled in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center towers on Sept. 11, 2001, an extra year to file claims against the authority.
The cleanup workers argued that they have developed respiratory illnesses related to the asbestos cleanup at properties owned by Battery Park City Authority, including Ground Zero. The workers claimed that the authority failed to ensure their safety.
Meanwhile, the Battery Park City Authority argued that the state law extending the filing time was unconstitutional, and that the workers' claims should be dismissed.
The Battery Park City Authority challenged the state law extending the filing deadline and in 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
The state Court of Appeals' decision means that the Battery Park City Authority loses the ability to challenge Jimmy Nolan's Law, and the workers who toiled on the pile can pursue their asbestos claims in federal court.
Associate Judge Paul Feinman said in his opinion that a claim-revival statute “will satisfy the due process clause of the state constitution if it was enacted as a reasonable response in order to remedy an injustice.”
Chief Judge Janet DiFiore and Associate Judges
The appellants were represented by Gregory Cannata of Gregory J. Cannata & Associates, a personal injury law firm, and Luke Nikas, a partner at
In an email, Nikas said, “We're pleased that our clients—who sacrificed their health and safety to clean up the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks—will finally have the opportunity to pursue their claims and get the justice they deserve.”
Daniel Connolly, a managing partner at Bracewell, represented the Battery Park City Authority. He did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllEuropean, US Litigation Funding Experts Look for Commonalities at NYU Event
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250