Coratti v Wella Corp.
2008 NY Slip Op 09167 [56 AD3d 343]
November 20, 2008
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, January 7, 2009


John Coratti et al., Appellants,
v
The Wella Corporation etal., Respondents.

[*1]Godosky & Gentile, P.C., New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), for appellants.

Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd., New York (Robert R. Rigolosi of counsel), forWella respondents.

Harris Beach PLLC, New York (Judi Abbott Curry of counsel), for L'Oreal and Cosmair,Inc., respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered on or about January11, 2007, which, in an action by a hairdresser for personal injuries allegedly caused by hisoccupational exposure to defendants' hair coloring products, granted defendants' motions forsummary judgment dismissing the complaint, and order, same court and Justice, entered on orabout August 3, 2007, which, insofar as appealable, denied plaintiff's motion to renew,unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly found that plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact in response todefendants' prima facie showing that the scientific community has not generally acceptedplaintiff's theory that his ailments can be caused by daily, occupational exposure to the chemicalscontained in defendants' hair dyes (seeMarso v Novak, 42 AD3d 377, 378-379 [2007]). Moreover, as the motion court alsopointed out, plaintiff's experts do not even attempt to show how much exposure to whichchemical or chemicals, whether phenylenediamine, resorcinol or some other substance, willrender an individual susceptible to toxic poisoning, the extent of plaintiff's exposure to eachchemical or the quantity of each present in defendants' products (see Parker v Mobil Oil Corp., 7 NY3d434, 448-449 [2006]). Indeed, it does not even appear that any objective tests were everperformed on plaintiff to diagnose the presence of toxic agents in his [*2]body (seeEdelson v Placeway Constr. Corp., 33 AD3d 844, 845 [2006]). We have consideredplaintiff's other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, P.J., Mazzarelli,Buckley, McGuire and DeGrasse, JJ. [See 14 Misc 3d 1204(A), 2006 NY Slip Op52409(U).]


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.