Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter H. Moulton, J.), entered April 12, 2016, which denied defendant Nash Engineering Company’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Defendant failed to establish prima facie that plaintiff’s decedent could not have been exposed to its products or the asbestos contained therein (see Koulermos v A.O. Smith Water Prods., 137 AD3d 575 [1st Dept 2016]). Its reliance on the decedent’s inability to identify its product as a source of his exposure to asbestos is misplaced (see id.; Salerno v Garlock Inc., 212 AD2d 463 [1st Dept 1995]). In any event, plaintiffs raised an issue of fact by submitting evidence that defendant’s asbestos-containing pumps were present on the ship to which the decedent was assigned as a boiler tender fireman.
Concur— Friedman, J.P., Richter, Saxe, Moskowitz and Kapnick, JJ.