You are here: / / THE DUE PROCESS PRONG OF LONG-ARM JURISDICTION WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED WITH...

THE DUE PROCESS PRONG OF LONG-ARM JURISDICTION WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED WITH RESPECT THE GERMAN MANUFACTURER; IN ADDITION THE FAILURE TO WARN CAUSE OF ACTION WAS PREEMPTED BY THE FEDERAL MEDICAL DEVICE AMENDMENTS TO THE FDA REGULATIONS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the due process prong of long-arm jurisdiction was not satisfied and the failure to warn allegation was preempted by Federal Drug Administration (FDA) regulations under the Medical Device Amendments (MDA). The medical device was not described in the decision but it apparently involves treatment of the eye:

Plaintiff has not shown a regular flow of Morcher’s [the German manufacturer’s] goods into New York, advertising directed at New York, the delivery of Morcher’s goods into the stream of commerce with the expectation of purchase in New York, or any other facts that may arguably have established jurisdiction … . …

It is undisputed that the device in question is a class III medical device with respect to which the federal government has established requirements. Thus, we must determine whether plaintiff’s “common-law claims are based upon New York requirements with respect to the device that are ‘different from, or in addition to,’ the federal ones, and that relate to safety and effectiveness” … . If so, those claims are preempted by the MDA … . If, on the other hand, the common-law claims provide a damages remedy and are premised on a violation of the regulations of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), they ” ‘parallel,’ rather than add to, federal requirements” and are not preempted … . … Plaintiff … fails to identify any federal statute or regulation that requires defendants to provide warnings to consumers or their physicians … . Barone v Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 2021 NY Slip Op 00745, Fourth Dept 2-5-21

 

You might also like
PERSON SENDING TEXT MESSAGES TO A DRIVER DOES NOT OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO A PERSON INJURED BY THE DRIVER, OSTENSIBLY BECAUSE THE DRIVER WAS DISTRACTED BY THE TEXTS (FOURTH DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE OF “PHYSICAL INJURY” WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PEOPLE DID NOT PRESENT EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE AT THE DARDEN HEARING THAT THE INFORMANT EXISTED, THEREFORE THE SUPPRESSION MOTION WAS GRANTED AND THE INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO PROCEED PRO SE ON THE PEOPLE’S MOTION TO COMPEL A BUCCAL SWAB FOR DNA TESTING (FOURTH DEPT).
THERE SHOULD ONLY BE ONE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING BASED UPON THE SAME RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT (RAI); HERE THERE WERE TWO ASSESSMENTS IN TWO COUNTIES, ONE AT LEVEL TWO AND ONE AT LEVEL THREE; THE LEVEL THREE RISK ASSESSMENT WAS VACATED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ERRONEOUSLY DENIED HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT THE SANDOVAL HEARING, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE IMPOSITION OF A FINE WAS NOT PART OF THE PLEA AGREEMENT; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE FINE WAS VACATED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).
Plaintiff Was Unable to Raise a Question of Fact About Whether Her Injuries Were Related to a Preexisting Condition

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FOR CAUSE CHALLENGES TO TWO JURORS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT). DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON...