DECISION & ORDER
SHERRY KLEIN HEITLER, Judge.
This motion is decided in accordance with the memorandum decision.
In this asbestos personal injury action, defendant Lennox Industries, Inc. ("Lennox") moves pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all other claims asserted against it on the ground that plaintiffs' decedent John Garbutt could not have been exposed to asbestos from a Lennox boiler because it did not manufacture boilers until 1992, well after Mr. Garbutt's alleged exposure period. In opposition, plaintiffs argue that Mr. Garbutt's testimony that he insulated Lennox heating systems with asbestos during the late 1960's and early 1970's combined with documentary evidence showing that Lennox manufactured furnaces throughout this time period raises a triable issue of fact that precludes summary judgment.
Plaintiffs' decedent John Garbutt was diagnosed with mesothelioma in April of 2012. He was deposed in connection with this action over the course of three days in September and October of 2012, and testified that he was exposed to asbestos while working as a union apprentice insulator from 1969 to 1973.
On cross-examination by counsel for Lennox, Mr. Garbutt testified that the Lennox heating systems he encountered were hot water heating systems, referred to as boilers (Deposition pp. 349):
Summary judgement is a drastic remedy that must not be granted if there is any doubt about the existence of a triable issue of fact. Tronlone v La d'Amiante du Quebec, Ltee, 297 A.D.2d 528, 528-529 (1st Dept 2002). In an asbestos personal injury action, should the moving defendant make a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law, plaintiffs must show facts and conditions from which the defendant's liability may be reasonably inferred. Reid v Georgia Pacific Corp., 212 A.D.2d 462, 463 (1st Dept 1995). All reasonable inferences should be resolved in plaintiffs' favor. Dauman Displays, Inc. v Masturzo, 168 A.D.2d 204, 205 (1st Dept 1990).
In support of its motion the defendant relies primarily on the affidavit of Lennox's Corporate Service Manager of Residential Heating Products, Mr. William Drake.
The defendant asserts that its furnaces did not heat or circulate water or steam as described by plaintiffs' decedent. Based on his testimony, however, it is questionable whether he understood the mechanical workings of heating systems and how they operated (Deposition pp 311-12, objection omitted):
Thus, while Mr. Garbutt testified he was exposed to asbestos from Lennox boilers, which defendant purports were not manufactured until 1992, the fact is that Lennox did manufacture heating equipment, albeit furnaces, throughout his exposure period. In light of Mr. Garbutt's questionable technical expertise regarding heating systems, the issue here is one of credibility, which as a matter of law must be determined by a jury. See Asabor v Archdiocese of N.Y., 102 A.D.3d 524, 527 (1st Dept 2013); Dollas v W.R. Grace & Co., 225 A.D.2d 319, 321 (1st Dept 1996).
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Lennox Industries, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment is denied in its entirety.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.