skip to main content
Harris Beach Murtha Attorneys at Law
Capabilities
People
main menu
Harris Beach Murtha Attorneys at Law
  • Capabilities
  • People
  • Capabilities
  • People
About
About
Inclusion and Engagement
Social Impact
Lateral Opportunities
About
Inclusion and Engagement
Social Impact
Lateral Opportunities
Resources
Insights
News
Events
Insights
News
Events
Careers
Contact
Offices

Judi Abbott Curry

Of Counsel

jcurry@harrisbeachmurtha.com
D: (212) 313-5404  
- Long Island, NY Office
- New York, NY Office
Linkedin
X-twitter
Address-card

< Swipe >

Partner Judi Abbott Curry
Profile
Representative Matters
Resources
Distinctions

Judi concentrates in areas of mass tort, class action and complex product liability litigation involving pharmaceuticals, medical devices, implants, infusion pumps, compounded medicines, biologics, over-the-counter drugs, solvents, acids, benzene, per- and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS), mixed chemical exposures, mold, Legionella, pesticides, cosmetics, food, beverages, nutritional supplements, commercial and consumer household goods. She represents hospitals, physicians, medical practices, nurses, physical therapists, pharmacists and other health care providers in claims of negligence, medical malpractice, hospital-based toxic exposures and medical device malfunctions. Judi represents manufacturers, distributors, contract manufacturing organizations (CMO), retailers, pharmacies, chemical and raw ingredient suppliers and company or independent sales representatives in the life science industry. Judi’s environmental practice includes defense of claims of personal injury, property damage, remediation costs and stigmatization, due to spills and leaks of residential oil on land and tidal wetlands, and chemicals alleged to have contaminated water supplies. Judi represents contractors, construction companies, building product manufacturers and property owners against claims of negligence, breach of contract and warranty, contribution and indemnity in construction defect and property damage matters alleging pecuniary losses and remediation costs.

Judi has a broad range of experience in representing the life science industry throughout an FDA regulated product’s life cycle, from clinical trials, pre market and launch risk assessment and batch manufacturing, through product liability, multi-district and class action matters involving labeling, packaging and distribution, including black box warnings, off-label use and state of the art label changes, post-recall events, consumer fraud statutes, breach of warranty and false advertising claims, and commercial disputes where manufacturing, packaging or servicing results in financial loss, including expenses associated with a recall.

Judi served as national coordinating counsel for New England Compounding Pharmacy in the compounding pharmacy fungal contamination mass tort as well as national counsel for several medical device companies involved in mass tort litigation arising out of the use of a pain pump to deliver medication to the shoulder following arthroscopic surgery. She was national coordinating counsel to four chemical suppliers in semi-conductor manufacturing chemical exposure litigation and served as regional counsel for Dow Corning in the silicone breast implant litigation responsible for managing the personal injury claims of over 1,000 plaintiffs and coordinating counsel for injectable silicone litigation pending nationwide.  In her representation of leading hair dye and cosmetics manufacturers, Judi has successfully defended flagship products against claims of multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS), cancer, respiratory and musculoskeletal diseases.

In addition to her extensive experience defending over-the-counter and prescription drug, medical device, biologic and implant products, Judi provides counseling advice to pharmaceutical, device and cosmetic companies concerning pre-litigation risk assessments; recalls and market withdrawals of FDA regulated products; company submissions to FDA including package inserts, patient package inserts, and other labeling, warnings and NDA filings; product brochures; direct-to-consumer advertising; website content; press materials and media kits; sales and training materials and programs; pharmacovigilance and the development and use of risk minimization action plans and RiskMAP.

Drawing upon her experience in representing life sciences companies through the firm’s product liability practice, Judi represents contract manufacturing organizations and other life science companies in commercial disputes that may arise at each phase of the life-cycle of prescription, over-the-counter, personal care/cosmetic, biologic, medical device, nutritional supplement and food products.  Representative matters have included disputes involving contracts and agreements governing product development; quality, equipment and cGMP issues arising during the development and manufacture of clinical trial batches; manufacturing and labeling issues for either excipients or finished products; disputes in joint ventures; as well as litigation involving the supply, manufacture and distribution for FDA regulated products.  Judi also manages the complex commercial disputes that these companies often face in pre-litigation risk assessments and investigations, state and federal court actions, arbitrations, mediations and other ADR proceedings.

Judi defends claims of birth defects, autoimmune disease, fibromyalgia, orthopedic and neurologic injuries, learning disabilities, cancer, severe burns and disfigurement, and multiple chemical sensitivities using epidemiology and expert disciplines of dysmorphology, teratology, toxicology, industrial hygiene, oncology, rheumatology, neurology and others.  She utilizes cutting-edge litigation management technologies such as proprietary databases, document processing, imaging and predictive coding software to manage complex litigation in an electronic environment.

In the construction defects area, Judi represents owners, management companies, developers, contractors and material suppliers against claims of negligence, breach of contract and warranty, contribution and indemnity in multi-million dollar toxic mold and water intrusion personal injury and property damage matters alleging pecuniary losses, lost revenue and payments to tenants, repair and remediation and re-design and renovation costs. Specific matters have alleged physical damage, cracked ceilings and walls, water infiltration and mold, design flaws, structural defects, and defective building materials causing property damage.  She has also represented clients in matters where mold allegedly caused respiratory illnesses, autoimmune disease, allergic reactions and dermatological injuries, as well as other bodily injuries and illnesses.  Judi has handled construction defect matters involving diverse issues impacting liability, damages, apportionment and coverage involving architectural design, engineering, framing, waterproofing, masonry, excavation, HVAC, foundations, sheet-rocking, plumbing, electrical work and materials manufacture.  Additionally, Judi has experience defending construction accident matters on behalf of contractors and owners in which it is alleged that construction workers have been injured due to violations of Sections 200, 240 and 241 of the Labor Law of New York.

  • Menza v. Slomin’s, No. 609206/16 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Cty, April 11, 2019) partial summary judgment awarded in toxic tort claim that alleged exposure to residential oil spill caused homeowner to develop lupus and/or the exposure exacerbated her lupus condition. Court dismissed the lupus claim, holding that evidence of a mere association between a toxin and an injury is not sufficient to establish causation, and further, even when general causation is satisfied, the Plaintiff must still establish sufficient exposure to have caused the claimed adverse health effect.
  • Fleming v. Laakso, No. 1:18-cv-01527-RA-BCM (S.D.N.Y. February 27, 2019) dismissal of claims against psychiatrist in federal court action which alleged defamation by performing a mental assessment and deeming Plaintiff unfit for duty at a hospital related clinic, medical malpractice and tortious interference with prospective business relations. Court held complaint failed to state a cause of action under FRCP 12(b)(6), did not plead the necessary elements of defamation, tortious interference with prospective business relations or medical malpractice, and dismissal was appropriate based upon the common interest qualified privilege.
  • Ford v. Riina, 2017 WL 1709471 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty, May 2, 2017) summary judgment granted and affirmed on appeal to the Appellate Division First Department 160 A.D.3d 588, 75 N.Y.S.3d 13 (1st Dept. April 26, 2018) on behalf of endovascular device manufacturer Concentric Medical, Inc. (now Stryker Neurovascular) in medical device product liability case brought on behalf of a severely brain-damaged plaintiff, dismissing all claims under CPLR R. 3212, including design defect, failure to warn and breach of warranty; holding that device manufacturer established prima facie evidence that the product labeling conveyed adequate warnings; prima facie entitlement to summary dismissal of plaintiff’s design defect claim by establishing that the endovascular retrieval device was state of the art; and holding expert witness affidavits in opposition were speculative and conclusory, unsupported by any scientific basis, statistics, analysis or empirical data, as experts failed to disclose the experimental data and test conditions used to generate their opinions.
  • Tomaselli v. Zimmer, 2017 WL 1011492 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2017) adopting Magistrate Report and Recommendation (Jan. 20, 2017) summary judgment granted and affirmed on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 2018 WL 1612230 (2d Cir. Apr. 4, 2018) on behalf of GTR fixation medical device manufacturer Pioneer Surgical and distributor Zimmer under FRCP 56, holding that decision of a physician, as a learned intermediary, not to inform the patient of the risk of medical device fracture does not support the physician’s lack of awareness of the risk; the surgeon’s independent awareness of the risk severed the required causal connection between an alleged failure to warn and plaintiff’s injury; the instructions for use referred specifically to cable breakage and as such were adequate as a matter of law; failure to identify product defect and offer expert evidence of alternative feasible design or deviation from defendants' design and engineering specifications were fatal to design and manufacturing defect claims, required summary judgment on negligence and strict product liability claims and breach of implied and express warranty.
  • Hudson v. Sunnyside Corp., 155 A.D.3d 1532 (4th Dep’t 2017) dismissal affirmed on appeal in toxic tort product liability action involving exposure to muriatic acid used to clean an indoor swimming pool. Plaintiff asserted several causes of action including negligence in failure to warn, specifically, that defendant’s product failed to provide an affirmative statement of the principal hazard associated with the use of the product, and adequate precautionary measures regarding actions to be followed or avoided when using the product, making the product a “misbranded hazardous substance” in violation of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (“FHSA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1261(p). In a unanimous decision, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed finding that the label was in compliance with the FHSA in providing sufficient statements of the principal hazard and of the precautionary measures to be followed or avoided.
  • Greenwood v. Tehrani, 2017 WL 4083099, 2017 NY Slip Op 31963(U) (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty, September 15, 2017) dismissal of plaintiff’s medical malpractice, lack of informed consent, and negligence claims against a medical device manufacturer. Court rejected claims that sales representative’s presence invoked duty to warn patient, as the manufacturer’s duty is to warn the medical community, not the patient, of the product’s risks, as it is the physician whose duty it is to balance the risks against the benefits of various medical products and treatments and to prescribe them and supervise their effects. Medical device manufacturer did not have duty to ensure the device was used by the physician in accordance with FDA guidelines and plaintiff could not assert medical malpractice and lack of informed consent claims against medical device manufacturer, since a manufacturer neither practices medicine nor has a duty to inform a patient of the risks and benefits of a particular treatment.
  • Vidal v. Dentsply, Index 18110/2010 (Supreme Court of the State of New York, Washington County, April 23, 2015): summary judgment on all causes of action in a medical device product liability action involving dental equipment alleged to give patient an electric shock. In the face of learned intermediary testimony and plaintiff’s reliance upon a mere temporal relationships between exposure to the product and the subsequent development of later injury, the Supreme Court found plaintiff failed to make a showing of general causation by submission of expert reports or past events establishing that the device had propensity to cause electric shock.
  • Coratti v. Wella Corporation, 56 A.D.3d 343, 867 N.Y.S.2d 421 (New York Appellate Division, First Department 2008): summary judgment on behalf of L’Oreal, affirmed on appeal, establishing that the scientific community has not generally accepted the theory that MCS can be caused by daily, occupational exposure to the chemicals contained in hair dyes.
  • Hanlon v. Gliatech, (United States District Court, Eastern District of New York 2008): FRCP 12(b)(6) dismissal of negligence, strict liability and fraud claims on behalf of manufacturer of 510K medical device, a surgical adhesive used in orthopedics.
  • Burger v. Union Carbide Corp., 304 A.D.2d 700 (New York Appellate Division, Second Department 2003): dismissal premised upon New York’s “toxic tort” statute of limitations.
  • Krasnopolsky v. Warner-Lambert, Co., 799 F. Supp. 1342 (United States District Court, Eastern District of New York 1992): pharmaceutical manufacturer discharged its duty to warn through Learned Intermediary;
  • Warner v. American Fluoride, 204 A.D.2d 1, 616 N.Y.S.2d 534 (New York Appellate Division, Second Department 1994): FIFRA preemption of pesticide labeling claims.
Insights
March 24, 2025

GLP-1 Weight-Loss Drugs Off Shortage List; Deadlines to Stop Compounding

These branded pharmaceuticals are so popular and in demand that pharmaceutical manufacturers could not keep up with production.
January 22, 2025

Medical and Life Sciences: New York 2024 Year in Review

New York state and federal courts issued 2024 decisions that shaped the landscape in the medical and life sciences legal world.
July 24, 2024

NY Appellate Court Addresses Engineer Testimony and Frye Hearing

New York’s Second Department ruled an error in precluding the expert’s testimony, but deemed the decision to decline a Frye hearing proper.
March 6, 2024

NY Appellate Court: Conflicting Expert Opinions Preclude Summary Judgment

A NY Appellate Court affirmed that when opposing parties’ experts offer conflicting opinions, this precludes summary judgment.
January 18, 2024

New York Medical and Life Sciences: Year in Review 2023

Partner Judi Abbott Curry reviews, analyzes and shares potential implications for future life science cases, based on key judicial holdings.
July 24, 2023

Do You Recall? A Blueprint for Managing Product Recalls

Kelly Jones Howell and Judi Abbott Curry discuss practices for managing product recalls and the importance of attorney-client relationships.
May 15, 2023

PREP Act COVID 19 Liability Protections Continue Through HHS Amended Declaration

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ended the COVID-19 public health emergency, but liability protections are still in place.
May 2, 2023

First Quarter 2023 Trends in the Food and Beverage Industry

The first quarter witnessed litigation and regulatory developments which affect the chain of commerce in the food and beverage industry.
News
January 6, 2026

Harris Beach Murtha Attorneys’ Legal Alert Among JD Supra’s Most Read

The alert warned compounding pharmacies that certain weight-loss drugs were no longer on the FDA’s shortage list.
March 27, 2025

Members of Harris Beach Murtha’s Management Committee Reflect on Women’s History Month

In honor of Women’s History Month, we invited the women members of the firm’s Management Committee to reflect on their role models in law.
February 24, 2025

Articles by Attorneys Alex Anolik, Judi Abbott Curry, Abbie Fuchs and Dan Strecker Featured in DRI Publication

DRI is an international membership organization of defense attorneys that produces For the Defense magazine.
October 24, 2024

23 Harris Beach Attorneys Named in 2024 New York Metro Super Lawyers Edition

Harris Beach PLLC is pleased to announce that 23 of its attorneys have been named to the 2024 New York Metro Super Lawyers list. Attorneys
June 17, 2024

Partner Judi Abbott Curry Receives Attorney of the Year Award

Partner Judi Abbott Curry, named Attorney of the Year Award by Medmarc Insurance Group, a life sciences insurance carrier.
February 21, 2024

Harris Beach Year in Review Articles Featured in For The Defense Magazine

DRI featured two Harris Beach 2023 Year in Review pieces, Mass Torts and Industry-Wide Litigation and Medical and Life Sciences.
August 4, 2023

Partners Kelly Jones Howell and Judi Abbott Curry Discuss Best Practices for Product Recalls in Law360 Article

Harris Beach Medical & Life Sciences Partners Kelly Jones Howell and Judi Abbott Curry discussed Best Practices for Product Recalls in Law36
June 21, 2023

Harris Beach Attorneys Published an Article in the June issue of DRI For The Defense

Judi Abbott Curry and Brendan P. Hall recently published an article in “For the Defense,” a magazine produced by the Defense Institute.
Events

Judi Abbott Curry to Lead Discussion on GLP-1 Weight Loss Drugs at 37th Medmarc Medical Device Seminar

June 12, 2025
Judi Abbott Curry will present, “All You Ever Wanted to Know About GLP-1 Weight Loss Drugs.”
External Publications
September 1, 2017

DRI For Life: Lessons from Disaster (DRI's For The Defense)

Prev ...1... Next

Professional and Civic

  • Claims and Litigation Management Alliance, member
  • Defense Research Institute, member
  • New York State Bar Association, member, past Officer and Secretary of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Section (2013-2015)
  • Berkley Life Sciences, Elite Defense Counsel Network, member

Recognition

  • Medmarc, Attorney of the Year, 2024
  • Long Island Business News, Who’s Who in Women in Professional Services, August 21, 2015; August 19, 2016; and August 18, 2017 editions
  • Super Lawyers, Class Action/Mass Torts, 2008 – 2024
Admissions
New YorkU.S. Court of Appeals, First CircuitU.S. Court of Appeals, Second CircuitU.S. District Court, New York - Eastern DistrictU.S. District Court, New York - Northern DistrictU.S. District Court, New York - Southern DistrictU.S. District Court, New York - Western District
Education

Fordham University School of Law

JD 
1986

State University of New York at Stony Brook

BA 
1983

Capabilities

Legal Practices

Member of:

Medical and Life Sciences
Mass Torts and Industry-Wide Litigation
Product Liability and Comprehensive General Liability

Industry Teams

Member of:

Construction
Harris Beach Murtha Attorneys at Law
  • Contact
  • Offices
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal Disclaimer
  • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Offices
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal Disclaimer
  • Site Map
Payment Portal
X-twitter Facebook Linkedin Instagram

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. © 2025 Harris Beach Murtha Cullina PLLC

TRUSTe
Harris Beach Murtha Attorneys at Law
Back to Top
Partner Judi Abbott Curry

Judi Abbott Curry

Of Counsel

jcurry@harrisbeachmurtha.com
Capabilities
People
Harris Beach Murtha Attorneys at Law
Partner Judi Abbott Curry

Judi Abbott Curry

jcurry@harrisbeachmurtha.com
D: (212) 313-5404
Long Island, NY Office
New York, NY Office

Profile

Judi concentrates in areas of mass tort, class action and complex product liability litigation involving pharmaceuticals, medical devices, implants, infusion pumps, compounded medicines, biologics, over-the-counter drugs, solvents, acids, benzene, per- and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS), mixed chemical exposures, mold, Legionella, pesticides, cosmetics, food, beverages, nutritional supplements, commercial and consumer household goods. She represents hospitals, physicians, medical practices, nurses, physical therapists, pharmacists and other health care providers in claims of negligence, medical malpractice, hospital-based toxic exposures and medical device malfunctions. Judi represents manufacturers, distributors, contract manufacturing organizations (CMO), retailers, pharmacies, chemical and raw ingredient suppliers and company or independent sales representatives in the life science industry. Judi’s environmental practice includes defense of claims of personal injury, property damage, remediation costs and stigmatization, due to spills and leaks of residential oil on land and tidal wetlands, and chemicals alleged to have contaminated water supplies. Judi represents contractors, construction companies, building product manufacturers and property owners against claims of negligence, breach of contract and warranty, contribution and indemnity in construction defect and property damage matters alleging pecuniary losses and remediation costs.

Judi has a broad range of experience in representing the life science industry throughout an FDA regulated product’s life cycle, from clinical trials, pre market and launch risk assessment and batch manufacturing, through product liability, multi-district and class action matters involving labeling, packaging and distribution, including black box warnings, off-label use and state of the art label changes, post-recall events, consumer fraud statutes, breach of warranty and false advertising claims, and commercial disputes where manufacturing, packaging or servicing results in financial loss, including expenses associated with a recall.

Judi served as national coordinating counsel for New England Compounding Pharmacy in the compounding pharmacy fungal contamination mass tort as well as national counsel for several medical device companies involved in mass tort litigation arising out of the use of a pain pump to deliver medication to the shoulder following arthroscopic surgery. She was national coordinating counsel to four chemical suppliers in semi-conductor manufacturing chemical exposure litigation and served as regional counsel for Dow Corning in the silicone breast implant litigation responsible for managing the personal injury claims of over 1,000 plaintiffs and coordinating counsel for injectable silicone litigation pending nationwide.  In her representation of leading hair dye and cosmetics manufacturers, Judi has successfully defended flagship products against claims of multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS), cancer, respiratory and musculoskeletal diseases.

In addition to her extensive experience defending over-the-counter and prescription drug, medical device, biologic and implant products, Judi provides counseling advice to pharmaceutical, device and cosmetic companies concerning pre-litigation risk assessments; recalls and market withdrawals of FDA regulated products; company submissions to FDA including package inserts, patient package inserts, and other labeling, warnings and NDA filings; product brochures; direct-to-consumer advertising; website content; press materials and media kits; sales and training materials and programs; pharmacovigilance and the development and use of risk minimization action plans and RiskMAP.

Drawing upon her experience in representing life sciences companies through the firm’s product liability practice, Judi represents contract manufacturing organizations and other life science companies in commercial disputes that may arise at each phase of the life-cycle of prescription, over-the-counter, personal care/cosmetic, biologic, medical device, nutritional supplement and food products.  Representative matters have included disputes involving contracts and agreements governing product development; quality, equipment and cGMP issues arising during the development and manufacture of clinical trial batches; manufacturing and labeling issues for either excipients or finished products; disputes in joint ventures; as well as litigation involving the supply, manufacture and distribution for FDA regulated products.  Judi also manages the complex commercial disputes that these companies often face in pre-litigation risk assessments and investigations, state and federal court actions, arbitrations, mediations and other ADR proceedings.

Judi defends claims of birth defects, autoimmune disease, fibromyalgia, orthopedic and neurologic injuries, learning disabilities, cancer, severe burns and disfigurement, and multiple chemical sensitivities using epidemiology and expert disciplines of dysmorphology, teratology, toxicology, industrial hygiene, oncology, rheumatology, neurology and others.  She utilizes cutting-edge litigation management technologies such as proprietary databases, document processing, imaging and predictive coding software to manage complex litigation in an electronic environment.

In the construction defects area, Judi represents owners, management companies, developers, contractors and material suppliers against claims of negligence, breach of contract and warranty, contribution and indemnity in multi-million dollar toxic mold and water intrusion personal injury and property damage matters alleging pecuniary losses, lost revenue and payments to tenants, repair and remediation and re-design and renovation costs. Specific matters have alleged physical damage, cracked ceilings and walls, water infiltration and mold, design flaws, structural defects, and defective building materials causing property damage.  She has also represented clients in matters where mold allegedly caused respiratory illnesses, autoimmune disease, allergic reactions and dermatological injuries, as well as other bodily injuries and illnesses.  Judi has handled construction defect matters involving diverse issues impacting liability, damages, apportionment and coverage involving architectural design, engineering, framing, waterproofing, masonry, excavation, HVAC, foundations, sheet-rocking, plumbing, electrical work and materials manufacture.  Additionally, Judi has experience defending construction accident matters on behalf of contractors and owners in which it is alleged that construction workers have been injured due to violations of Sections 200, 240 and 241 of the Labor Law of New York.

Areas of Expertise

Legal Practices

Member of:

Medical and Life Sciences
Mass Torts and Industry-Wide Litigation
Product Liability and Comprehensive General Liability

Industry Teams

Member of:

Construction

Focuses

Please select listing to show.

Admissions

New YorkU.S. Court of Appeals, First CircuitU.S. Court of Appeals, Second CircuitU.S. District Court, New York - Eastern DistrictU.S. District Court, New York - Northern DistrictU.S. District Court, New York - Southern DistrictU.S. District Court, New York - Western District

Representative Matters

  • Menza v. Slomin’s, No. 609206/16 (Sup. Ct. Nassau Cty, April 11, 2019) partial summary judgment awarded in toxic tort claim that alleged exposure to residential oil spill caused homeowner to develop lupus and/or the exposure exacerbated her lupus condition. Court dismissed the lupus claim, holding that evidence of a mere association between a toxin and an injury is not sufficient to establish causation, and further, even when general causation is satisfied, the Plaintiff must still establish sufficient exposure to have caused the claimed adverse health effect.
  • Fleming v. Laakso, No. 1:18-cv-01527-RA-BCM (S.D.N.Y. February 27, 2019) dismissal of claims against psychiatrist in federal court action which alleged defamation by performing a mental assessment and deeming Plaintiff unfit for duty at a hospital related clinic, medical malpractice and tortious interference with prospective business relations. Court held complaint failed to state a cause of action under FRCP 12(b)(6), did not plead the necessary elements of defamation, tortious interference with prospective business relations or medical malpractice, and dismissal was appropriate based upon the common interest qualified privilege.
  • Ford v. Riina, 2017 WL 1709471 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty, May 2, 2017) summary judgment granted and affirmed on appeal to the Appellate Division First Department 160 A.D.3d 588, 75 N.Y.S.3d 13 (1st Dept. April 26, 2018) on behalf of endovascular device manufacturer Concentric Medical, Inc. (now Stryker Neurovascular) in medical device product liability case brought on behalf of a severely brain-damaged plaintiff, dismissing all claims under CPLR R. 3212, including design defect, failure to warn and breach of warranty; holding that device manufacturer established prima facie evidence that the product labeling conveyed adequate warnings; prima facie entitlement to summary dismissal of plaintiff’s design defect claim by establishing that the endovascular retrieval device was state of the art; and holding expert witness affidavits in opposition were speculative and conclusory, unsupported by any scientific basis, statistics, analysis or empirical data, as experts failed to disclose the experimental data and test conditions used to generate their opinions.
  • Tomaselli v. Zimmer, 2017 WL 1011492 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2017) adopting Magistrate Report and Recommendation (Jan. 20, 2017) summary judgment granted and affirmed on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 2018 WL 1612230 (2d Cir. Apr. 4, 2018) on behalf of GTR fixation medical device manufacturer Pioneer Surgical and distributor Zimmer under FRCP 56, holding that decision of a physician, as a learned intermediary, not to inform the patient of the risk of medical device fracture does not support the physician’s lack of awareness of the risk; the surgeon’s independent awareness of the risk severed the required causal connection between an alleged failure to warn and plaintiff’s injury; the instructions for use referred specifically to cable breakage and as such were adequate as a matter of law; failure to identify product defect and offer expert evidence of alternative feasible design or deviation from defendants’ design and engineering specifications were fatal to design and manufacturing defect claims, required summary judgment on negligence and strict product liability claims and breach of implied and express warranty.
  • Hudson v. Sunnyside Corp., 155 A.D.3d 1532 (4th Dep’t 2017) dismissal affirmed on appeal in toxic tort product liability action involving exposure to muriatic acid used to clean an indoor swimming pool. Plaintiff asserted several causes of action including negligence in failure to warn, specifically, that defendant’s product failed to provide an affirmative statement of the principal hazard associated with the use of the product, and adequate precautionary measures regarding actions to be followed or avoided when using the product, making the product a “misbranded hazardous substance” in violation of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (“FHSA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1261(p). In a unanimous decision, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed finding that the label was in compliance with the FHSA in providing sufficient statements of the principal hazard and of the precautionary measures to be followed or avoided.
  • Greenwood v. Tehrani, 2017 WL 4083099, 2017 NY Slip Op 31963(U) (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty, September 15, 2017) dismissal of plaintiff’s medical malpractice, lack of informed consent, and negligence claims against a medical device manufacturer. Court rejected claims that sales representative’s presence invoked duty to warn patient, as the manufacturer’s duty is to warn the medical community, not the patient, of the product’s risks, as it is the physician whose duty it is to balance the risks against the benefits of various medical products and treatments and to prescribe them and supervise their effects. Medical device manufacturer did not have duty to ensure the device was used by the physician in accordance with FDA guidelines and plaintiff could not assert medical malpractice and lack of informed consent claims against medical device manufacturer, since a manufacturer neither practices medicine nor has a duty to inform a patient of the risks and benefits of a particular treatment.
  • Vidal v. Dentsply, Index 18110/2010 (Supreme Court of the State of New York, Washington County, April 23, 2015): summary judgment on all causes of action in a medical device product liability action involving dental equipment alleged to give patient an electric shock. In the face of learned intermediary testimony and plaintiff’s reliance upon a mere temporal relationships between exposure to the product and the subsequent development of later injury, the Supreme Court found plaintiff failed to make a showing of general causation by submission of expert reports or past events establishing that the device had propensity to cause electric shock.
  • Coratti v. Wella Corporation, 56 A.D.3d 343, 867 N.Y.S.2d 421 (New York Appellate Division, First Department 2008): summary judgment on behalf of L’Oreal, affirmed on appeal, establishing that the scientific community has not generally accepted the theory that MCS can be caused by daily, occupational exposure to the chemicals contained in hair dyes.
  • Hanlon v. Gliatech, (United States District Court, Eastern District of New York 2008): FRCP 12(b)(6) dismissal of negligence, strict liability and fraud claims on behalf of manufacturer of 510K medical device, a surgical adhesive used in orthopedics.
  • Burger v. Union Carbide Corp., 304 A.D.2d 700 (New York Appellate Division, Second Department 2003): dismissal premised upon New York’s “toxic tort” statute of limitations.
  • Krasnopolsky v. Warner-Lambert, Co., 799 F. Supp. 1342 (United States District Court, Eastern District of New York 1992): pharmaceutical manufacturer discharged its duty to warn through Learned Intermediary;
  • Warner v. American Fluoride, 204 A.D.2d 1, 616 N.Y.S.2d 534 (New York Appellate Division, Second Department 1994): FIFRA preemption of pesticide labeling claims.

Distinctions

Professional and Civic

  • Claims and Litigation Management Alliance, member
  • Defense Research Institute, member
  • New York State Bar Association, member, past Officer and Secretary of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Section (2013-2015)
  • Berkley Life Sciences, Elite Defense Counsel Network, member

Recognition

  • Medmarc, Attorney of the Year, 2024
  • Long Island Business News, Who’s Who in Women in Professional Services, August 21, 2015; August 19, 2016; and August 18, 2017 editions
  • Super Lawyers, Class Action/Mass Torts, 2008 – 2024
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. © 2026 Harris Beach Murtha Cullina PLLC
Content current as of October 13, 2026 12:18 pm