Case Name: Sylvia McGuiness, Respondent, v. Roux Distributing Co., et al., Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1959-06-11
Citations: 19 Misc. 2d 956
Docket Number: 
Parties: Sylvia McGuiness, Respondent, v. Roux Distributing Co., et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 19
Pages: 956–956

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.