913 F.2d 58
Nancy Cassese MONTE, individually and as Administratrix of
the Estate of Albert J. Cassese, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
NATIONAL GYPSUM COMPANY; AC & S, Inc.; Armstrong World
Industries, Inc., f/k/a Armstrong Cork Co.; The Celotex
Co., individually and as a successor in interest to Philip
Carey Manufacturing Co., Philip Carey Corp., Briggs
Manufacturing Co., Smith & Kanzler Corp., and Panacon Corp.;
Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.; GAF Corporation; Nicolet,
Inc., individually and successor in interest to
Keasbey-Mattison Co.; Raymark Industries Inc., individually
and as successor in interest to Raybestos-Manhattan Inc.;
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., U.S. Mineral Products Co.,
H.K. Porter Co., Inc., individually and successor to
Southern Textile Corp., and Southern Asbestos Co.; The
Flintkote Co.; Carey Canada Inc.; Fibreboard Corp.; Rock
Wool Manufacturing Co., Inc.; Owens-Illinois Inc.; Turner
& Newall, PLC., individually and as successor to
Keasbey-Mattison Corp.; United States Gypsum Co., Dana
Corp., individually and as successor to Smith & Kanzler Co.,
and Victor Gasket Co.; Certainteed Corp.; TAF
International Ltd., formerly Turner Asbestos Fibers Ltd.,
Pittsburgh-Corning Corp., individually and as successor to
Unarco Ind., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 177, Docket 90-6143.
United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.
Argued Sept. 17, 1990.
Decided Sept. 17, 1990.
Steven J. Phillips (Diane Paolicelli, Alani Golanski, Levy Phillips & Konigsberg, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.
Steven Cooper (Frank S. Occhipinti, Anderson Kill Olick & Oshinsky, P.C., New York City, of counsel), for defendants-appellees AC & S, Inc., Armstrong World Industries, Inc., GAF Corp., Pittsburgh-Corning Corp., Fibreboard Corp., National Gypsum Co., U.S. Gypsum Co., Dana Corp., CertainTeed Corp., and T & N plc, f/k/a Turner & Newall PLC.
Before OAKES, Chief Judge, MESKILL, Circuit Judge, and RESTANI, Judge, U.S. Court of International Trade.*
PER CURIAM:
In light of the pendency of trial commencing tomorrow in the Eastern District of New York, this appeal--involving several of the defendants--having been argued today, is decided today. We affirm the judgment that against these defendants there has been no revival of plaintiff's cause of action under New York law, but an opinion will follow in due course.
Honorable Jane E. Restani, sitting by designation
