Zampino v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.
| Decision Date | 03 March 1960 |
| Docket Number | COLGATE-PALMOLIVE |
| Citation | 7 N.Y.2d 995,199 N.Y.S.2d 508 |
| Parties | , 166 N.E.2d 512 Helen M. ZAMPINO, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Michael Zampino, Plaintiff, v.COMPANY, Defendant, and F. W. Woolworth Co., Defendant- Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, 8 A.D.2d 304, 187 N.Y.S.2d 25.
Buyer of deodorant and her husband brought action against retailer and manufacturer of deodorant for injuires allegedly sustained by buyer as result of use of deodorant sold and recommended by clerk of retailer, and for medical expenses and loss of services.
The Supreme Court, Special Term, Montgomery County, Felix J. Aulisi, J., 10 Misc.2d 686, 173 N.Y.S.2d 117, entered judgment against the retailer but in favor of the manufacturer, and the retailer appealed.
The Appellate Division, Herlihy, J., 8 A.D.2d 304, 187 N.Y.S.2d 25, reversed the judgment and order, dismissed the complaint, and held that where deodorant contained certain percentage of specified ingredient, but there was no testimony that such ingredient was in any way harmful to skin or unsuitable for purpose for which it was being sold, and buyer's doctor gave no reason for opinion that dermatitis was caused by use of the deodorant, buyer failed to prove that deodorant was harmful or not of merchantable qualify.
The buyer appealed to the Court of Appeals, and motion was made in the Court of Appeals to dismiss the appeal.
Motion to dismiss the appeal granted and the appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion, unless, within ten days, appellant serves and files an undertaking on appeal and pays ten dollars costs and, within twenty days files the return on appeal, in which events, motion denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Presbrey v. Gillette Co.
...in warranty. See Zampino v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, 8 A.D.2d 304, 187 N.Y.S.2d 25, 27 (1959); appeal dismissed, 7 N.Y.2d 995, 199 N.Y.S.2d 508, 166 N.E.2d 512 (1960). From our review of the entire record, we conclude that the evidence so overwhelmingly favors defendant that no contrary v......
-
Zampino v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., COLGATE-PALMOLIVE
...buyer appealed to the Court of Appeals, and motion was made in the Court of Appeals to dismiss the appeal. The Court of Appeals, 7 N.Y.2d 995, 199 N.Y.S.2d 508, granted motion to dismiss the appeal and dismissed the appeal unless buyer within 10 days should serve and file an undertaking on ......