In Perdicaro v. A.O. Smith Water Products, 52 A.D.3d 300 [1st Dept. 2008] the court found that the plaintiff worker's evidence failed to raise a factual issue of fact where no factual support was offered to reasonably suggest that the insulation that he observed defendants' subcontractors install on pumps at various powerhouses was asbestos-based. Indeed, the plaintiff in Perdicaro "lacked sufficient training in insulating work," and the evidence in the case indicated that the insulation work that was done at the powerhouses he worked at "often contained fire/heat resistant components other than asbestos." As such, the court held that it would be "purely speculation" to assume that the insulating materials used at the powerhouses that plaintiff worked at were indeed asbestos-based. Notably, based on testimony similar to that in the instant case, it was not plaintiff's proximity to the defendant's product that was questioned by the First Department, but rather whether that product contained asbestos.