main content

Harris Beach PLLC Discover True Engagement image

People

About
  • About Harris Beach
  • Offices
  • Inclusion and Diversity
  • Community and Pro Bono
  • Lateral Opportunities
Careers
  • Careers at Harris Beach
  • Lateral Opportunities

Contact Us

Subsidiaries
  • HB Cornerstone
  • HB Solutions
  • Caetra.io
Industries
Legal Practices
Resources
Automotive and Vehicle Dealerships
Blockchain and Digital Assets
Cannabis
Construction and Surety
Education, K-12
EMS and Fire Protection Providers
Energy
Energy Industry Team
Sectors
Residential Electrical Submetering
Renewable Energy
Financial Institutions and Capital Markets
Food and Beverage
Food and Beverage Industry Team
Sectors
Nutritional Supplements
Health Care
Health Care Industry Team
Sectors
Long-Term Care
Higher Education
Industrial and Consumer Manufacturing
Medical and Life Sciences
Medical and Life Sciences Industry Team
Sectors
Long-Term Care
Nutritional Supplements
Pharmacy Law
Municipalities and Local Agencies
Nanotechnology
Photonics
Racing and Gaming
Real Estate Developers
Real Estate Developers Industry Team
Sectors
Retail Real Estate in New York State
Science and Technology
Telecommunications and Media
Unmanned Aircraft Systems – Drones
Veterinary Medicine
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution
  • Appellate
  • Business and Commercial Litigation
  • Collections
  • Commercial Real Estate
  • Corporate
  • Cybersecurity Protection and Response
  • Diversity Compliance
  • E-Discovery (e-info℠)
  • Employee Benefits
  • Environmental
  • Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)
  • Financial Restructuring, Bankruptcy and Creditors’ Rights
  • Foreclosure
  • Government Compliance and Investigations
  • Immigration
  • Insurance Coverage
  • Intellectual Property
  • International Trade
  • Internet Commerce
  • Labor and Employment
  • Mass Torts and Industry-Wide Litigation
  • Political Law
  • Product Liability and Comprehensive General Liability
  • Public Finance and Economic Development
  • Residential Real Estate
  • Tax
  • Wills, Trusts and Estates
  • Insights
  • News
  • Events
  • Covid-19 Resources
Judi Curry
D: (212) 313-5404  
jcurry@harrisbeach.com
Twitter

Judi Abbott Curry

  Member

(212) 313-5404
  jcurry@harrisbeach.com
Twitter
“It is important to learn about our client’s business and their products to craft an excellent defense and defend the product liability allegations. Clients appreciate my ability to take complex, legal, technical, medical and/or scientific concepts and make them understandable to the court, the adversary and/or the jury.”
  • Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 Signals New Era of FDA Oversight
  • Fitness Companies Flex with Dismissal in New York UCC Elastic Band Case
  • Harris Beach Attorney Judi Abbott Curry Featured in DRI In-House Defense Quarterly
Profile
Representative Matters
Professional and Civic
Areas of Experience
Admissions
Education
Location
Publications and Events

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 and other 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, 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. 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.  She is also a member of the firm’s management committee.

Judi has a broad range of experience in representing the life science industry throughout a product’s life cycle, from clinical trials, pre market and launch risk assessment and batch manufacturing, through product liability matters involving labeling, packaging and distribution, including black box warnings, off-label use and state of the art label changes, post-recall events 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.

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.

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)

Recognition

  • 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, since 2008
  • Berkley Life Sciences, Elite Defense Counsel Network, member

 

Legal Practices

E-Discovery (e-info℠)
Mass Torts and Industry-Wide Litigation
Product Liability and Comprehensive General Liability

Industry Teams

Construction and Surety
Medical and Life Sciences
Nanotechnology

Sectors

Nutritional Supplements

Admissions

New York

U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit

U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

U.S. District Court, New York - Eastern District

U.S. District Court, New York - Northern District

U.S. District Court, New York - Southern District

U.S. District Court, New York - Western District

Fordham University School of Law

JD 
1986

State University of New York at Stony Brook

BA 
1983

Location

Long Island, NY Office
New York, NY Office
Insights
January 31, 2023

Fitness Companies Flex with Dismissal in New York UCC Elastic Band Case

New York’s Appellate Court dismissed a case where a sporting retailer’s and manufacturing exercise band injured a person’s right eye.
January 26, 2023

Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 Signals New Era of FDA Oversight

For the first time since the passage of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in 1938, the Federal cosmetics law has been substantially updated.
January 18, 2023

Medical and Life Sciences: Year in Review 2022

Partner Judi Abbott Curry reviews, analyzes and shares potential implications for future life science cases based on several key judicial ho
July 28, 2022

New York Clarifies Rules Surrounding Sanctions in Two Spoliation Cases

The Second Department of the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division issued two decisions in Phelps-Vachier v. Genovese Drug Stores,
July 13, 2022

Late Answer in New York Results in Snowballed Consequences

New York’s Appellate Division, Second Department reversed a trial court decision that granted a defendant’s motion to compel acceptance of a
June 16, 2022

Unanimous Approval Received for Amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702: Testimony of Expert Witnesses

The Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure unanimously approved several amendments on June 7, 2022, to clarify Federal Rule of Evidenc
April 26, 2022

New York’s Appellate Division Affirms Summary Judgment Based on Lack of Specific Causation of Toxic Exposure to Gas

New York’s Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a decision of the Bronx County Supreme Court, which precluded plaintiff’s expert ev
March 15, 2022

California Supreme Court Decision Gives Relief to Defendants Seeking to Prevent their Prior Discovery Depositions from Being used at Trial

When defending litigation in one state, mass tort defendants must consider other jurisdictions’ rules.  For example, while some states gener
March 1, 2022

Amendments to Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act, CPLR 3101(f), Mitigate Burden to Civil Defendants

At the beginning of 2022, New York state enacted the Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act (“CIDA”), imposing significant new burdens on de
January 27, 2022

New York Medical and Life Sciences: Year in Review 2021

From pharmaceuticals to dietary supplements, preemption to public health, New York state and federal courts issued decisions in 2021, which
January 18, 2022

Appellate Decision Permits COVID-19 “Take-Home” Suit to Proceed

A California appeals court permitted a Los Angeles County wrongful death lawsuit for COVID-19 “take-home” liability to proceed.  The plainti
January 7, 2022

New York State Comprehensive Insurance Act and Amendments to CPLR 3101(f) Implicate Defendants’ Disclosure Obligations in Civil Litigation

The New York State Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act is now in effect.
December 20, 2021

PREP Act Preemption: “There is no COVID-19 Exception to Federalism”

When the estates of nursing home residents who died from COVID-19 brought negligence and wrongful death lawsuits in New Jersey state court,
December 15, 2021

Update to Legal Alert: Summary Judgment Reversed In Toxic Tort Matter Involving Bladder Cancer and Exposure to O-Toluidine

We previously wrote about a federal magistrate judge’s report and recommendation denying exclusion of Plaintiffs’ specific causation expert
October 13, 2021

In Lennon v. 56th & Park(NY) Owner LLC, the Second Department Expands Applicability of Collateral Estoppel in Workers’ Compensation Findings

The doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes a party from re-litigating an issue raised and decided against that party or a party in privit
October 7, 2021

Court Orders EPA to Take Final Action on Rules Regarding Dispersant Chemicals Used In Mitigating Ocean Oil Spills

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) “delayed unreason
October 7, 2021

HHS Further Amends Declaration Under the PREP Act to Address Influenza and COVID-19 Impact and Add Pharmacist Vaccinators

The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has issued the Eighth Amendment to the Declaration Under the Public
June 10, 2021

Toll or Suspension? New York Appellate Division Provides Clarity

New York’s Appellate Division, Second Department recently denied two motions arguing an appeal was untimely where the appellant filed a noti
March 26, 2021

SCOTUS Extends Specific Jurisdiction to Ford in Products Cases

The Supreme Court of the United States recently affirmed two state court judgments that had permitted plaintiffs to assert jurisdiction over
March 23, 2021

Breast Implant Multidistrict Litigation Claims Pared Down by New Jersey Federal Court

In a mass tort product liability, class action and consumer fraud consolidated litigation involving Allergan’s Biocell textured breast impla
February 1, 2021

HHS Further Amends Declaration Under the PREP Act to Expand COVID-19 Vaccinators

The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act), 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d, provides liability immunity related to the manufacture, t
February 1, 2021

New York Medical and Life Sciences: Year in Review 2020

From contraceptives to mesh implants, shampoos to pasta, New York state and federal courts issued decisions in 2020 which further shaped the
January 29, 2021

Two New York Appellate Court Decisions Affirm Default Orders Dismissing Plaintiffs’ Complaint

Two recent New York Appellate Division Second Department decisions articulated the standards of review for appeal of orders entered upon the
January 14, 2021

New York’s First Department Limits the Ability for Defendants to Testify as to Custom and Practice in Medical Malpractice Cases

The First Department has limited the role of testimony as to custom and practice in establishing what a defendant physician did in a specifi
December 4, 2020

New York High Court Recognizes “American Pipe” Cross-jurisdictional Class Action Tolling but Dismissal Restarts the Clock

Recently, the Court of Appeals of New York answered the questions certified to it by the Second Circuit in the affirmative that New York rec
November 24, 2020

New York Second Department Limits the Ability for Defendants to Testify as to Custom and Practice in Medical Malpractice Cases

The Second Department of the Appellate Division, New York State Supreme Court, has limited the role of testimony as to custom and practice i
November 24, 2020

Recent Cases from New York’s Second Department Clarify What is Necessary for a Pre-Note of Issue Dismissal

In recent rulings, New York’s Second Department has clarified the standard to strike pleadings for violation of Court Orders. Contrasting th
November 9, 2020

FDA and FTC Take Action Regarding Pandemic-Related Products

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous manufacturers and distributors of products ranging from CBD, to herbal products and supplemen
October 30, 2020

FDA Limits Respirator Manufacturers who can Apply for Authorization Under EUA

The FDA recently reissued an Emergency Use Authorization (“EUA”) for the sale and import of certain non-NIOSH-approved respirators manufactu
September 16, 2020

New York Supreme Court Allows Plaintiff to Plead Statutory Fraud Claim with Medical Malpractice Negligence Cause of Action

A New York Supreme Court allowed a Plaintiff to assert a statutory fraud claim in the context of deceptive business practices under New York
August 20, 2020

New Jersey Supreme Court Finds Products Liability Act Does Not Bar Consumer Fraud Act Claims Alleging Express Misrepresentations

In responding to the question of law certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit pursuant to Rule 2:12A-3, the New
August 13, 2020

New York Federal Court Finds Italian Tomato Labels Not Misleading in Consumer Fraud Class Action

In a consumer fraud class action complaint against Cento Fine Foods, plaintiffs alleged misleading labeling of canned tomato products from I
June 16, 2020

The Case of the Exploding Can of PAM: Plaintiffs’ Product Liability Claims Don’t Stick

A New York Federal Court granted Defendants’ Daubert motion to exclude design defect expert testimony on a design defect claim for PAM Cooki
May 12, 2020

New York Federal Court Dismisses Breast Implant Products Liability Claim on Preemption Grounds

MemoryGel silicone breast implants are Class III medical devices, approved by the FDA through the premarket approval (PMA) process in 2006.
April 27, 2020

FDA’s Emergency Use Authorization Expands Class of Mask Manufacturers and Distributors Entitled to Immunity

In response to increased concerns regarding insufficient personal protective equipment (“PPE”), the FDA recently issued an Emergency Use Aut
April 16, 2020

NIOSH-Approved Masks Defined as Covered Countermeasures for Liability Immunity Under Amended PREP Act Declaration

As concern about availability of personal protective equipment (“PPE”) continues to grow amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government
March 26, 2020

Government Issues Immunity to Liability for COVID-19 Countermeasures

In times of national public health crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic, manufacturers and distributors of products are often called to the
February 7, 2020

Presumptive ADR Poised to Expand Across New York State After Promising Start in New York City

Encouraged by New York City’s implementation of new initiatives for presumptive Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), an advisory committee
October 30, 2019

Judgment by Confession: New York State Quashes Loophole Harming Out-of-State Debtors

A new amendment in New York that restricts the use of judgments by confession will protect debtors and limit the ability of creditors to exp
October 24, 2019

FDA Proposes Strengthening Warning Labels on Breast Implants

The Food and Drug Administration has issued a new draft breast implant guidance recommending that manufacturers strengthen labeling about th
August 7, 2019

FDA Requests Worldwide Recall of Certain Textured Breast Implants

The Food and Drug Administration took significant action to protect women from breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA
June 21, 2019

Court Decision Highlights Key Role of Expert Witness in Food Manufacturer Suits

The Appellate Division of New York, Second Department, recently upheld a lower court’s decision denying a defendant manufacturer’s applicati
May 6, 2019

FDA Determines Textured Breast Implants Do Not Require Safety Ban

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced that data reviewed on the risks associated with textured breast implants and anaplastic
March 29, 2019

FDA Committee Addresses Safety of Breast Implants

In its ongoing evaluation of the safety of breast implant medical devices, the FDA convened a public advisory committee meeting of the Gener
March 12, 2019

FDA Issues Warning for Robotically Assisted Mastectomies and Other Cancer Surgeries

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a safety warning regarding the use of robotically assisted surgical devices for mastectomi
News
February 23, 2023

Harris Beach Attorney Judi Abbott Curry Featured in DRI In-House Defense Quarterly

Partner Judi Abbott Curry’s annual New York Medical and Life Sciences Year in Review was republished by DRI.
January 6, 2023

Pandemic Measures Continue to Dominate In Medical Device Recalls, Partner Judi Abbott Curry Predicts

Emergency measures taken during the COVID19 pandemic continue to drive medical device recalls in 2022, according to Judi Abbott Curry.
March 23, 2022

Harris Beach Attorneys Judi Abbott Curry, Kelly Jones Howell and Gene Kelly Featured Prominently in DRI In-House Defense Quarterly

Harris Beach partners authored two articles in the recent DRI In-House Defense Quarterly Winter 2022 issue.
March 10, 2022

Judi Abbott Curry’s New York Medical and Life Sciences Year in the Review Appears in New York Law Journal

Harris Beach partner Judi Abbott Curry recently authored her annual New York Medical and Life Sciences Year in Review 2021, and the comprehe
February 16, 2022

Partner Judi Abbott Curry Interviewed on “In-House Warrior” Podcast

Much has happened at a legal and regulatory level since the first COVID vaccine doses were administered in December 2020.
December 19, 2021

Medical and Life Sciences Industry Team Co-Leader Judi Abbott Curry Outlines Importance of Quality Assurance Departments

Quality assurance professionals in the pharmaceutical and medical device industries should be considered an essential investment critical to
October 13, 2021

Harris Beach Attorneys Recognized in 2021 Edition of New York Metro Super Lawyers

Attorneys from Harris Beach PLLC offices in New York City, White Plains and on Long Island have been named to the 2021 edition of the New Yo
November 12, 2019

79 Attorneys from Harris Beach Named to 2019 Super Lawyers List

A total of 79 Harris Beach PLLC attorneys have been named to the 2019 edition of Super Lawyers, a peer-based rating service that recognizes
Events
External Publications
September 1, 2017

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

All Insights, All Publications, Legal Alert |
 January 31, 2023
Fitness Companies Flex with Dismissal in New York UCC Elastic Band Case
New York's Appellate Court dismissed a case where a sporting retailer's and manufacturing exercise band injured a person's right eye....read more
All Insights, All Publications, Legal Alert |
 January 26, 2023
Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 Signals New Era of FDA Oversight
For the first time since the passage of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in 1938, the Federal cosmetics law has been substantially updated....read more
All Insights, Advisory, All Publications |
 January 18, 2023
Medical and Life Sciences: Year in Review 2022
Partner Judi Abbott Curry reviews, analyzes and shares potential implications for future life science cases based on several key judicial ho...read more
All Insights, All Publications, Legal Alert |
 July 28, 2022
New York Clarifies Rules Surrounding Sanctions in Two Spoliation Cases
The Second Department of the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division issued two decisions in Phelps-Vachier v. Genovese Drug Stores,...read more
All Insights, All Publications, Legal Alert |
 July 13, 2022
Late Answer in New York Results in Snowballed Consequences
New York's Appellate Division, Second Department reversed a trial court decision that granted a defendant's motion to compel acceptance of a...read more
All Insights, All Publications, Legal Alert |
 June 16, 2022
Unanimous Approval Received for Amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702: Testimony of Expert Witnesses
The Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure unanimously approved several amendments on June 7, 2022, to clarify Federal Rule of Evidenc...read more
Harris Beach PLLC, Attorneys at Law, Discover True Engagement

Contact us

  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal Disclaimer
  • Site Map

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
© 2023 Harris Beach PLLC

Twitter Facebook Linkedin Instagram
Make a Payment
MAke a Payment
TRUSTe
Harris Beach PLLC Discover True Engagement image

Judi Abbott Curry

jcurry@harrisbeach.com
D: (212) 313-5404
Long Island, NY Office
New York, NY Office
Judi Curry
https://www.harrisbeach.com/people/curry-judi-abbott/

■ Areas of Expertise

Legal Practices

E-Discovery (e-info℠) Legal Practice
Mass Torts and Industry-Wide Litigation Legal Practice
Product Liability and Comprehensive General Liability Legal Practice

Industry Teams

Construction and Surety Industry Team
Medical and Life Sciences Industry Team
Nanotechnology Industry Team

Sectors

Nutritional Supplements

■ 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 and other 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, 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. 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.  She is also a member of the firm’s management committee.

Judi has a broad range of experience in representing the life science industry throughout a product’s life cycle, from clinical trials, pre market and launch risk assessment and batch manufacturing, through product liability matters involving labeling, packaging and distribution, including black box warnings, off-label use and state of the art label changes, post-recall events 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.

■ 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.

■ 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)

■ Admissions

  • 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, since 2008
  • Berkley Life Sciences, Elite Defense Counsel Network, member

 

■ Education

Fordham University School of Law
 ,JD
 ,1986
State University of New York at Stony Brook
 ,BA
 ,1983

Harris Beach and its subsidiaries provide a full range of legal and professional services for clients across New York state, as well as nationally and internationally. Harris Beach is among the country’s top law firms as ranked by The National Law Journal and is among the BTI Elite law firms based on in-depth interviews of more than 600 corporate counsel at the world’s largest and most influential companies. Our clients include Fortune 100 corporations, privately-held companies, emerging businesses, public sector entities, not-for-profit organizations and individuals. Principal industries we represent include education, energy, financial, food and beverage, health care, insurance, manufacturing, medical and life sciences, real estate developers, and state and local governments and authorities.

Industry Teams
Automotive and Vehicle Dealerships
Blockchain and Digital Assets 
Cannabis
Construction and Surety
Educational Institutions Higher Ed
Educational Institutions K-12
EMS and Fire Protection Providers
Energy
Financial Institutions and Capital Markets
Food and Beverage
Health Care
Industrial and Consumer Manufacturing
Medical and Life Sciences
Municipalities and Local Agencies
Nanotechnology
Photonics
Racing and Gaming
Real Estate Developers
Science and Technology
Telecommunications and Media
Unmanned Aircraft Systems
USA Collegiate Sports
Veterinary Medicine

Practices
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Appellate
Business and Commercial Litigation
Collection Law
Commercial Real Estate
Corporate
Cybersecurity Protection and Response
Diversity Compliance
E-Discovery (e-infoSM)
Employee Benefits
Employment Litigation
Environmental Law
Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)
Financial Restructuring, Bankruptcy and Creditors’ Rights
Government Compliance and Investigations
Health Law
Immigration Law
Insurance Coverage
Intellectual Property Law
International Trade Law
Internet Law
Labor and Employment Law
Mass Torts and Industry-Wide Litigation
New Markets Tax Credit
Patent, Trademark and Copyright Law
Product Liability and Comprehensive General Liability
Public Finance and Economic Development
Real Property Valuation Litigation
Residential Real Estate
Tax Law
White Collar Crime
Wills, Trusts and Estates

Consulting Services
HB Solutions LLC
Collegiate Sports Compliance
Data Privacy and Cybersecurity
Economic Development and Public Affairs
Educational Institution Assistance
EMRG® (E-Discovery Management Resources Group)
Energy
Health and Human Services
Human Resources
Information Technology
Marketing and Communication Services
Municipal and Local Agency Assistance

HB Cornerstone LLC
Owner Representation
Design Services
Facilities Consulting
Move Management

Caetra.io
CyMetric (Cybersecurity Regulation Compliance Software)

Offices throughout New York:

Albany
677 Broadway
Albany, NY 12207
518-427-9700

Buffalo
726 Exchange Street
Buffalo, NY 14210
716-200-5050

Ithaca
119 East Seneca Street
Ithaca, NY 14850
607-273-6444

Long Island
333 Earle Ovington Boulevard
Uniondale, NY 11553
516-880-8484

New York City
100 Wall Street
New York, NY 10005
212-687-0100

Rochester
99 Garnsey Road
Pittsford, NY 14534
585-419-8800

Saratoga Springs
513 Broadway
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
518-587-0551

Syracuse
333 West Washington Street
Syracuse, NY 13202
315-423-7100

White Plains
445 Hamilton Avenue
White Plains, NY 10601
914-683-1200

Offices also in:

New Haven, CT
195 Church Street
New Haven, CT 06510
203-784-3159

Newark, NJ
One Gateway Center
Newark, NJ 07102
973-848-1244

Washington, DC
800-685-1429

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
© 2022 Harris Beach PLLC

Content current as of March 21, 2023 3:50 am
Cookies
This website uses cookies as specified in our privacy policy. You consent to the use of cookies by clicking accept or by using our site. We do not sell your personal information.
.
Cookie settingsACCEPT
Manage cookies

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
CookieDurationDescription
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional11 monthsThe cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy11 monthsThe cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytics
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Others
Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.
SAVE & ACCEPT