Case ID: misc2d_19/html/0956-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sylvia McGuiness, Respondent, v. Roux Distributing Co., et al., Appellants.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    June 11, 1959.
    
      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 á 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 — Steueb, J. P., Hoestadteb and Aurelio, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.