McGUINESS v. ROUX DISTRIBUTING CO

Full title: SYLVIA McGUINESS, Respondent, v. ROUX DISTRIBUTING CO., et al., Appellants

Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Jun 11, 1959

19 Misc. 2d 956 (N.Y. App. Term 1959)

196 N.Y.S.2d 164

Opinion

June 11, 1959

Appeal from the City Court of the City of New York, New York County, BENJAMIN SHALLECK, J.

Hampton Mahoney ( William F. McNulty of counsel), for appellants.

Selig Lenefsky for respondent.

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff failed to establish that the hair dye she purchased contained any deleterious substance. This is a necessary element. ( Karr v. Inecto, Inc., 247 N.Y. 360.) The occurrence of skin damage is not such proof unless other possible causes are excluded by competent professional testimony. ( Cahill v. Inecto, Inc., 208 App. Div. 191; see Karr v. Inecto, Inc., supra, p. 364.)

The judgment should be reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs to appellant.

Concur — STEUER, J.P., HOFSTADTER and AURELIO, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.