Whether the trial court improperly removed the factual inquiry into reasonable diligence and material fact questions from jury consideration in violation of the Seventh Amendment and Federal Rules of Evidence

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : ISSUEI: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT EFFECTIVELY REMOVED THE FACTUAL INQUIRY INTO PETITIONER “EXERCISE OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE” UNDER NEW YORK CLS CPLR 214-c (2) FROM THE JURY IN FAVOR OF AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD WHICH DISPENSES WITH ANY NEED TO ASCERTAIN PETITIONER’S KNOWLEDGE AS TO THE ETIOLOGY OF AN INJURY? : ISSUE II: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURTS REMOVAL FROM THE JURY THE MATERIAL FACT QUESTION OF WHEN PETITIONER KNEW OR REASONABLY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THE LATENT INJURY OF METALOSIS SUSTAINED BY PETITIONER, AND DECIDING SAID MATERIAL FACT QUESTION DURING SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROCEEDING VIOLATED PETITIONER’S SEVENTH AMENDMENT RIGHT UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION? ISSUE III: THE SECOND CIRCUIT FAILED TO FOLLOW FED. R. EVID. 702 AND WHERE THE PANEL’S FAILURE TO ADHERE TO THE STANDARD OF “DISPUTES OF MATERIAL FACT” IN THE REVIEW AND GRANTING OF A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION UNDER CPLR 214C(2) DEPRIVED PETITIONER OF A JURY'S CONSIDERATION THEREBY CONFLICTING WITH THE SUPREME COURT’S RULINGS IN ANDERSON V. LIBERTY LOBBY, INC. AND RELATED CASES i