party criminals would not have poisoned tablets or caplets instead). Plaintiffs claim, “[a]l-though masquerading as a claim for ‘better protection against tampering,’ [] is, in reality, a claim for tamper-proof packaging;” yet no such packaging exists. Id. at 162. Therefore, as a matter of law, Am-gen’s packaging of the Epogen could not be found defective in its packaging design. See, e.g. Id. at 162 (rejecting as a matter of law the plaintiffs contention that the packaging of the Tylenol was defective). Moreover, generally, a manufacturer does not have a duty to anticipate and prevent criminal conduct by third parties, or to design its product in such a way as to anticipate and frustrate criminal tampering. See, Elsroth, 700 F.Supp. at 163, 164; see also Cacciola, 127 F.Supp.2d at 190 (<HOLDING>). Further, contrary to plaintiffs contention,
holding that under new york law a manufacturer is not obligated to design a product that is impossible to abuse holding that a divorce granted at a foreign consulate in new york was not valid for immigration purposes because it did not comply with new york law holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york holding that new york law applies to this matter holding jurisdiction over nonresident defendant existed where note was payable in new york contained new york choice of law clause and proceeds were used to finance new york limited partnership