Re: NY Times Retraction Re;Frye/Mold/Attorney Misstatement

More | Report Post

To Sharon:

As an attorney who deals a lot with mold cases in New York,
and whose law form was actually involved in the Phipps
Housing case, I assure you that no court in New York ever
granted and held a Frye Hearing prior to Judge Shirley
Kornreich. I know this the New York Law Journal, who has
follwoed this issue very claosely, also knows this. There's
a reason why non-lawyers should not comment on areas of the
law they know nothing about.

Sincerley;

Mold litigator in New York

A Smith

On 10/22/06, Sharon wrote:
> Hi All,
> I tend to stay off of this board as I understand it is for
> attorneys, but I felt it was important for you all to see
> this one. The real gist of the situation is how marketing
> of false concepts is used in mold litigation.
>
> Not that anyone intentionally misspoke in the following
> article. But somehow, whenever one wants to present
within
> the media the stance that serious mold induced illnesses
> are not occurring, it seems to get broad national media
> attention.
>
> Sharon Kramer
>
>
> New York Times,
>
> Oct 22, 2206
>
> Correction to a Real Estate article
>
> Re: Mold and NY Frye, Oct 15, 2006
>
> "The Your Home column last Sunday, about the dismissal of
a
> claim that sought to hold a co-op corporation in Manhattan
> liable for injuries to residents caused by mold, referred
> incorrectly to a "Frye hearing," which was held to examine
> scientific links between mold and health problems.
Contrary
> to what a lawyer in the case stated, this was not the
first
> Frye hearing in New York; at least one other such hearing
> was held in Manhattan in 2001. (Go to Article)"
>
> They got many letters of complaint to the Editor. Below is
> mine:
>
>
> Subject: Another NY Frye hearing over mold.... Just last
> month You got punk'd.
> Date: 10/16/2006 9:31:56 A.M. Pacific Standard Time
> From: SNK 1955
>
>
> Mr. Romano,
>
> Sorry to bother you again, but it is looking more and more
> like you got punk'd by the defense into writing a story
> based on a false premise (that this Frye ruling was
> significant news because it was the first over the mold
> issue in the state of NY).
>
> In reality, what is significant about this Frye ruling is
> that is it novel in it's conclusions from all other NY
Frye
> rulings over the mold issue.
>
> It is quite understandable why the defense would want to
> use the real estate section of the NY Times to market the
> concept that, “This throws a lot of cold water on the
> notion that mold is the cause of personal injury,” said
Eva
> Talel, a Manhattan real estate lawyer. “And while this
> isn’t going to be the last word on the subject, the
> decision is so comprehensive and well thought out that
> other judges are not going to be anxious to rule
> differently.”
>
> As I understand it, ALL other NY Frye rulings have allowed
> in testimony of allergy and irritant effects from mold
> exposure within an indoor environment. This judge is the
> only one who has not. There is your true story!
>
> Beside the one I already sent to you from 2001, here is
> another one from just last month.
>
> Trust me, as a marketing person, I track this kind of
> stufff over the mold issue. You would not be the first
> writer to get punk'd into writing a false article over the
> mold issue.
>
> Although, I sincerely hope that now that you know this,
you
> will make every effort to set the record straight. The
> defense attorney you quoted misspoke regarding Frye and
the
> state of New York.
>
> "Andrew Brucker, the lawyer who represented the co-op in
> the case, said this was the first time a Frye hearing on
> mold had been held in New York"
>
> This is not the first Frye hearing regarding mold within
> the state of New York by a long shot.
> Frye Hr’g Proceeding at 14-15, Davis v. Henry Phipps Plaza
> South, Assocs. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. (Oct. 11, 2001)
>
> What can I do to help you?
>
> WR,
> Sharon
>
> Your Home
> Court Rebuffs a Suit Linking Mold to Illness
>
> By JAY ROMANO
> Published: October 15, 2006
> Correction Appended
>
>
> Illustration by Tom Bloom
>
> A DECISION issued last month by a State Supreme Court
> justice in Manhattan should allow building owners,
> including co-op and condominium boards, to rest a little
> easier about potential claims that indoor mold has injured
> an occupant of their buildings.
>
> After a review of more than 1,000 pages of testimony and
> more than 70 scientific articles and books, Justice
Shirley
> Werner Kornreich concluded that there was insufficient
> evidence to support the contention that mold or a damp
> indoor environment causes illness.
>
> “This throws a lot of cold water on the notion that mold
is
> the cause of personal injury,” said Eva Talel, a Manhattan
> real estate lawyer. “And while this isn’t going to be the
> last word on the subject, the decision is so comprehensive
> and well thought out that other judges are not going to be
> anxious to rule differently.”
>
> The case was brought by Colin and Pamela Fraser on behalf
> of themselves and their daughter, Alexandra, against the
> 301-52 Townhouse Corporation, which owned their co-op
> building. The Frasers contended that mold near windows and
> doors in their apartment caused respiratory problems, a
> rash and fatigue. The Frasers said that after moving into
> an apartment at 301 East 52nd Street in August 1996, Mr.
> Fraser developed a leg rash, lethargy and congestion and
> hearing, nasal and throat problems and Mrs. Fraser and
> their infant daughter developed respiratory problems.
>
> The couple said their conditions improved when the family
> moved out of the apartment in 2002.
>
> Before allowing the case to proceed to trial, Justice
> Kornreich ordered what is known as a Frye hearing to
> determine whether the Frasers’ contention that mold caused
> their health problems is “generally accepted” by
> scientists.
>
> A Frye hearing, which is named after a 1923 federal case,
> is used to determine whether scientific evidence supports
a
> litigant’s theory of liability. After 10 days and the
> testimony of four experts, Justice Kornreich concluded
that
> while one expert testified mold or damp indoor space
caused
> health problems, “the scientific literature did not
support
> his assertions.” As a result, Justice Kornreich dismissed
> the claim for personal injuries.
>
> Three calls to Elizabeth Eilender, the Frasers’ lawyer,
> seeking comment and information about a possible appeal,
> were not returned.
>
> Andrew Brucker, the lawyer who represented the co-op in
the
> case, said that the “whole mold issue has been blown out
of
> proportion.
>
> “We think this is going to have a major impact on lawyers
> who are thinking about bringing cases alleging injuries
> caused by mold,” he said. “And we think that insurance
> companies are now going to be more inclined to fight these
> cases instead of settle them.”
>
> Dennis Greenstein, a Manhattan co-op lawyer, said that
> while the decision was good news for property owners
> concerned that they could be held liable for injuries said
> to be caused by mold, they and their property managers
> should still take mold problems seriously.
>
> “People still have to do the best they can when dealing
> with mold and the leaks that may cause it,” Mr. Greenstein
> said. He pointed out that failure to address mold or leak
> problems could still leave owners exposed to lawsuits for
> property damage.
>
> Dr. Joseph Q. Jarvis, an expert in public health who is
> affiliated with the University of Nevada School of
Medicine
> in Reno, said he was surprised that a comprehensive review
> of the medical literature led the judge to conclude there
> was no consensus that mold can cause illness. While it may
> not be possible to specify the level of exposure needed to
> cause a problem, he said, it is well documented that
> exposure to indoor mold can cause respiratory allergies in
> some people.
>
>
> Correction: Oct. 22, 2006
>
> The Your Home column last Sunday, about the dismissal of a
> claim that sought to hold a co-op corporation in Manhattan
> liable for injuries to residents caused by mold, referred
> incorrectly to a "Frye hearing," which was held to examine
> scientific links between mold and health problems.
Contrary
> to what a lawyer in the case stated, this was not the
first
> Frye hearing in New York; at least one other such hearing
> was held in Manhattan in 2001.