IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION RALPH P. NORTH, plf-res, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO BUFFALO PUMPS, INC. def, NATIONAL GRID GENERATION, LLC, Defendant-res-ap, O'CONNOR CONSTRUCTORS, INC., Defendant-Appellant-res

1160-1161-1162. IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION RALPH P. NORTH, plf-res, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO BUFFALO PUMPS, INC. def, NATIONAL GRID GENERATION, LLC, Defendant-res-ap, O’CONNOR CONSTRUCTORS, INC., Defendant-Appellant-res — Coughlin Duffy LLP, New York (Kevin T. Coughlin of counsel), for appellant-res — Ingram Yuzek Gainen Carroll & Bertolotti, LLP, New York (John G. Nicolich of counsel), for res-res — Levy Konigsberg LLP, New York (Jerome H. Block of counsel), for res — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Shulman, J.), entered January 28, 2015, after a jury trial, awarding plaintiff, inter alia, $3,500,000,00 in damages for future pain and suffering as against defendant National Grid Generation, LLC, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered March 13, 2015, which granted National Grid’s motion for summary judgment on its claim against defendant O’Connor Constructors, Inc. for indemnification, except for attorneys’ fees, and denied O’Connor’s motion for summary judgment dismissing National Grid’s indemnification claim as against it, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant National Grid’s motion as to attorneys’ fees solely in connection with its defense against plaintiff’s action, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The jury verdict is based on sufficient evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence (see Cohen v. Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 498-499 [1978]). The evidence demonstrates that LILCO, defendant National Grid’s predecessor in interest, issued detailed specifications directing contractors in the means and methods of mixing and applying asbestos-containing concrete and insulation at the power plant, thus supporting the jury’s finding of a violation of Labor Law §200 (see Ross v. Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co., 81 NY2d 494, 505 [1993]). It is of no consequence that LILCO ensured that its directives were followed by supervising the superintendents, rather than by supervising the workers directly. Further, LILCO was admittedly in charge of trade coordination, i.e., directing the trades as to where and when to do their work, which resulted in plaintiff’s working in close contact with the asbestos-dust-producing insulators (see Rizzuto v. L.A. Wenger Contr. Co., 91 NY2d 343, 352-353 [1998]).