In Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. (Tortorella) (Sup Ct, New York County, June 14, 2005, Freedman, J., index No. 100297/02) the plaintiffs alleged that Con Edison was liable for Tortorella's mesothelioma pursuant to Labor Law 200 based on Tortorella's exposure to visible asbestos dust at Con Edison's Astoria powerhouse, which emanated from leaks in the building's ducts and coverings. In opposition to Con Edison's motion for summary judgment dismissing the claim against it, the plaintiffs argued that Con Edison could be held liable for failing to maintain a safe work area, observing that asbestos dust permeated the air when Tortorella was there, that only Con Edison could have taken precautions to ensure the safety of workers in its plant, and that Tortorella did not use asbestos-containing products in his work at the premises. Then, the plaintiffs added, by supplemental opposition, that Tortorella was exposed to asbestos through his own electrical work handling asbestos-containing products, and asserted that Con Edison supervised and controlled the work by providing him and his co-workers with asbestos-containing materials, by overseeing and correcting the work, and by furnishing specification MP 5620 R-2, reflecting that Con Edison retained supervision and control over workers, including the ability to reject materials or work not in compliance with drawings or specifications. The motion court denied Con Edison's motion, finding that Con Edison had general control over Tortorella's work and other work that was being performed on the premises, and had a duty to provide a safe place to work. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed and dismissed the Labor Law 200 claim against Con Edison, observing that the asbestos exposure at issue "would have resulted from work done by insulation contractors or [Tortorella]" that was ongoing when Tortorella was there. The Court held that: "there is no evidence that Con Edison exercised supervisory control over the work of either the insulation contractors or [the plaintiff] or that Con Edison coordinated the work of the various trades . . . Nor is there any evidence that the alleged asbestos exposure resulted from a workplace condition created by, or known to, Con Edison, rather than from the contractors' work methods." (25 AD3d 375, 807 N.Y.S.2d 352 [1st Dept 2006]).