Opinion
January 18, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.).
These three actions were commenced by foreign residents whose exposures to DES occurred in foreign States. None of the plaintiffs are able to identify specifically the manufacturers or suppliers of the DES which allegedly caused their injuries. Indeed, New York's connection to these actions is tenuous, at best. Under these circumstances, the substantive laws of the respective foreign States are applicable ( see, Schultz v Boy Scouts, 65 N.Y.2d 189; Neumeier v Kuehner, 31 N.Y.2d 121, 128). Contrary to plaintiffs' assertions, the Court of Appeals in Hymowitz v Eli Lilly Co. ( 73 N.Y.2d 487, cert denied 493 U.S. 944) did not conclude or imply that New York law should be applied in all DES cases litigated in this State.
The substantive laws of the foreign States at issue here do not recognize non-identification theories of liability in products liability cases such as these, and therefore the complaints must be dismissed ( see, e.g., Chapman v American Cyanamid Co., 861 F.2d 1515, 1520 [11th Cir 1988]; Mulcahy v Eli Lilly Co., 386 N.W.2d 67 [Iowa 1986]; Zafft v Eli Lilly Co., 676 S.W.2d 241 [Mo 1984]). Under the circumstances, it would be improper and presumptuous for the courts of this State to expand the theories of products liability recognized by foreign States ( see, Tidler v Eli Lilly Co., 851 F.2d 418, 424).
We have considered plaintiffs' other claims and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Rubin, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.