## Facts

- Rosa Guadamud, trained as a dentist abroad, operated what she represented as a dental practice in New York without holding a New York dental license.
- Dentsply International, Inc. sold a tooth-conditioning phosphoric acid gel packaged in a plastic syringe, intended to be dispensed and used only by licensed dentists; a Braun entity was alleged to have partially manufactured the syringe.
- On April 8, 1994, while treating a patient in her New York office, Guadamud used the tooth-conditioner gel syringe, which allegedly malfunctioned and sprayed acid into her eye/face, causing serious injury.
- In a separate state criminal matter, Guadamud pleaded guilty to practicing dentistry without a license.
- Guadamud sued Dentsply and Braun in federal court asserting products-liability claims premised on an alleged product defect.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Guadamud’s illegal unlicensed practice barred recovery under New York law and public policy.

## Issues

1. Whether New York law bars a plaintiff from recovering in products liability when the injury is the direct result of the plaintiff’s knowing and serious violation of a prohibitory statute, here the unlicensed practice of dentistry.
2. Whether the public-policy bar applies even if the product is assumed to be defective, where the injury occurred during the unlawful professional activity the statute forbids.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.
- The court held Guadamud could not recover because her injuries were directly attributable to her serious illegal conduct—practicing dentistry without a New York license.
- The court concluded the dental licensing scheme is prohibitory and protective, and allowing recovery would conflict with the statute’s purpose.

## Legal Principles

- Under New York law, tort recovery may be barred when the plaintiff’s injuries are the direct result of the plaintiff’s knowing and serious violation of a prohibitory statute.
- The bar turns on (1) the seriousness and prohibitory nature of the illegality and (2) a direct causal connection between the unlawful conduct and the injury.
- Professional licensing statutes aimed at public protection can preclude civil recovery where permitting damages would undermine deterrence and the protective purpose of the licensing regime.
- The public-policy bar applies regardless of the pleaded tort theory, including products liability, when the injury arises from the unlawful conduct itself.

## Conclusion

The court denied products-liability recovery because the plaintiff was injured while committing the serious, prohibitory offense of practicing dentistry without a license, and permitting damages would conflict with New York’s public-protection policy embodied in the dental licensing statutes.


Guadamud v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc., 20 F. Supp. 2d 433 (E.D.N.Y. 1998)