McGuiness v. Roux Distributing Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

McGuiness v. Roux Distributing Co.

19 Misc. 2d 956, 196 N.Y.S.2d 164, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3504

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 11, 1959

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 19 Misc. 2d 956 (McGuiness v. Roux Distributing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McGuiness v. Roux Distributing Co., 19 Misc. 2d 956, 196 N.Y.S.2d 164, 1959 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3504 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI