Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1959

McGuiness v. Roux Distributing Co.

McGuiness v. Roux Distributing Co.
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 11, 1959
19 Misc. 2d 956; 196 N.Y.S.2d 164; 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3504

Counsel

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

McGuiness v. Roux Distributing Co.

Opinion of the Court

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.