In Cooley v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., 102 AD2d 642 [4th Dept 1984], where plaintiff used an OTC product in a manner recommended-by his physician, but was contraindicated by the warning label, the court distinguished cases involving prescription medications, and discussed the case as involving the manufacturer's duty to provide an adequate warning to the lay consumer, noting that "had plaintiff been alerted to the possibility of enduring the severe injuries he sustained from use of what appeared to be an innocuous product used daily by many consumers, he may not have relied upon the recommendation of his doctor" (Id. at 648). The plaintiff was advised by his doctor to use Nair, an OTC depilatory, on an area of his body on which, according to the consumer package warning, it should not be used. Plaintiff experienced serious medical problems after using the product. The label stated only that "irritation or allergic reaction may occur with some people." The Appellate Division held that the warning could be found to be inadequate because it did not warn of the "specific risks involved if 'Nair' is applied to the genital area," and that "a warning may be inadequate when the magnitude of the potential harm requires more . . . (Cooley v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., supra, 102 AD2d at 646)." The court held further: "Had plaintiff been alerted to the possibility of enduring the severe injuries he sustained from use of what appeared to be an innocuous product used daily by many consumers, he may not have relied upon the recommendation of his doctor." (Id. at 648.)