de Alcantara v FANUC Ltd. 2024 NY Slip Op 34524(U) December 26, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 153424/2020 Judge: Mary V. Rosado Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/26/2024 03:53 PM INDEX NO. 153424/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/26/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. MARY V. ROSADO PART 33M Justice -------------------X INDEX NO. 153424/2020 NIDIA LORA DE ALCANTARA, RICARDO ALCANTARA, MOTION DATE 12/02/2023 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 2 -v- FANUC LTD., FANUC CORPORATION, FANUC AMERICA CORPORATION, FANUC ROBOTICS CORPORATION, AMENDED DECISION + ORDER FANUC EDM CORPORATION, METHODS MACHINE TOOLS, INC.,FARMINGTON MACHINE TOOLS, LLC ON MOTION Defendant. -------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50, 52, 53,54,55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69, 70, 71, 72 were read on this motion to/for SUMMARY JUDGMENT (AFTER JOINDER)
Upon the foregoing documents, and after oral argument, which took place on October 3,
2023, where Marissa D. Geyer, Esq. appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs, Nidia Lora de Alcantara
and Ricardo Alcantara, Yelena Graves, Esq. appeared on behalf of Defendant, FANUC America
Corporation ("FAC"), and Anthony Bianchi, Esq. appeared on behalf of Defendant, Methods
Machine Tools Inc., FAC's motion for an order for summary judgment dismissing all claims and
cross-claims against it, is denied, without prejudice, with leave to renew upon completion of further
discovery.
This Decision amends and supersedes this Court's prior Decision and Order dated April 1,
2024 (NYSCEF Doc. 73). The purpose of the amended decision is to clarify, at the request of the
parties (see NYSCEF Doc. 91) that the denial of the motion is without prejudice, with leave to
renew upon completion of further discovery, and to provide a date for a preliminary conference to
be held.
153424/2020 LORA DE ALCANTARA, NIDIA ET AL vs. FANUC LTD. ET AL Page 1 of& Motion No. 002
[* 1] 1 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/26/2024 03:53 PM INDEX NO. 153424/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/26/2024
Background In this product liability action, Nidia Lora de Alcantara alleges that she was injured at
work on April 28, 2017, while operating a FANUC Robodrill at Putnam Precision Products, Inc.
("Putnam") (NYSCEF Docs. 39, 48). Ms. Alcantara's husband, Ricardo Alcantara (Mr. and Ms.
Alcantara, collectively "Plainti:tr') brought a derivative cause of action for damages.
In the first cause of action, Plaintiff claims that all Defendants are strictly liable because
the FANUC Robodrill was "dangerous and defective" in its design and manufacture and
contained inadequate warnings (NYSCEF Doc. 1).
The second cause of action alleges negligence on the part of all Defendants in that the
injuries "were caused solely through the fault, negligence and culpable conduct" of the Defendants
(NYSCEF Doc. 1). The Complaint did not allege any separate basis for negligence other than the
defective design, manufacturing, and warnings. The third cause of action alleges breach of "all
warranties" made in connection with the Fanuc Robodrill (NYSCEF Doc. 1).
Plaintiffs also named FANUC Ltd., FANUC Corporation, FANUC Robotics Corporation,
and FANUC EDM Corporation as Defendants, but never served these entities.
Parties' Contentions
FAC seeks summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross-claim of Methods
Machine Tools, Inc. ("Methods") for common law indemnification and contribution because it
was not in the chain of distribution of the Robodrill involved in the accident. FAC asserts that it
did not design, manufacture, purchase, distribute, supply, sell or service the subject Robodrill and,
as such, cannot be held liable under theories of strict products liability or breach of warranties as a
matter oflaw (NYSCEF Docs. 38, 39, 49).
In opposition, Methods claims that the motion should be denied in its entirety pursuant to
CPLR § 3212(f), without leave to renew, since the motion is premature due to substantial,
material and necessary outstanding discovery, including responses to Plainti:trs Notice for
153424/2020 LORA DE ALCANTARA, NIDIA ET AL vs. FANUC LTD. ET AL Page 2of6 Motion No. 002
[* 2] 2 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/26/2024 03:53 PM INDEX NO. 153424/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/26/2024
Discovery and Inspection and Interrogatories dated September 2, 2022, and depositions of all
parties and non-party witnesses (NYSCEF Doc. 53).
Additionally, per the Preliminary Conference Order of this Court dated September 1,
2022, FAC was to produce a witness for a deposition on January 19, 2023. Instead, FAC
submitted only the Affidavit of its Vice President. Methods argues that the outstanding discovery
must be completed prior to FAC seeking summary judgment since issues raised in the instant
motion require information that is within the exclusive knowledge or possession of other parties.
Methods also points to an online press release, dated December 17, 2013, on Defendant
FAC's website announcing that FANUC had merged all of its operations in the Americas into a
single company named FANUC America Corporation (NYSCEF Doc. 59). Therefore, further
discovery is needed to explore whether FANUC FA America Corporation is another name for, or
a predecessor company to, FAC which would place FAC in the chain of distribution (NYSCEF
Doc. 53).
Methods seeks additional facts through discovery, including whether FAC, as the
successor entity of FANUC Robotics Corporation and/or FANUC EDM Corporation, can be
found to have distributed, supplied, sold and/or serviced Robodrills prior to Plaintiffs accident.
Method asserts that questions of fact exist as to the functional unity and control between
FAC and Fanuc Corporation f/k/a/ Fanuc Ltd. and that discovery is needed to explore any control,
supervision and/or management that FAC may have exercised over the operations of FANUC
Corp. in the Americas prior to the accident, or whether a principal/agent relationship existed
(NYSCEF Doc. 53).
Standard
The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of
entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material
issues of fact from the case (Winegradv New York Univ. Med Ctr., 64 NY2d 851,853 [1985];
153424/2020 LORA DE ALCANTARA, NIDIA ET AL vs. FANUC LTD. ET AL Page 3 of 6 Motion No. 002
3 of 6 [* 3] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/26/2024 03:53 PM INDEX NO. 153424/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/26/2024
Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320,324 [1986]). Failure to make aprimafacie showing
requires a denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (Id.) The
moving party's "burden is a heavy one" and the "facts must be viewed in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party" (Jacobsen v New York City Health and Hosps. Corp., 22 NY3d 824,
833 [2014]). Once this showing is made, the burden shifts to the opposing party to produce
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
de Alcantara v FANUC Ltd. 2024 NY Slip Op 34524(U) December 26, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 153424/2020 Judge: Mary V. Rosado Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/26/2024 03:53 PM INDEX NO. 153424/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/26/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. MARY V. ROSADO PART 33M Justice -------------------X INDEX NO. 153424/2020 NIDIA LORA DE ALCANTARA, RICARDO ALCANTARA, MOTION DATE 12/02/2023 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 2 -v- FANUC LTD., FANUC CORPORATION, FANUC AMERICA CORPORATION, FANUC ROBOTICS CORPORATION, AMENDED DECISION + ORDER FANUC EDM CORPORATION, METHODS MACHINE TOOLS, INC.,FARMINGTON MACHINE TOOLS, LLC ON MOTION Defendant. -------------------X
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 002) 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50, 52, 53,54,55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69, 70, 71, 72 were read on this motion to/for SUMMARY JUDGMENT (AFTER JOINDER)
Upon the foregoing documents, and after oral argument, which took place on October 3,
2023, where Marissa D. Geyer, Esq. appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs, Nidia Lora de Alcantara
and Ricardo Alcantara, Yelena Graves, Esq. appeared on behalf of Defendant, FANUC America
Corporation ("FAC"), and Anthony Bianchi, Esq. appeared on behalf of Defendant, Methods
Machine Tools Inc., FAC's motion for an order for summary judgment dismissing all claims and
cross-claims against it, is denied, without prejudice, with leave to renew upon completion of further
discovery.
This Decision amends and supersedes this Court's prior Decision and Order dated April 1,
2024 (NYSCEF Doc. 73). The purpose of the amended decision is to clarify, at the request of the
parties (see NYSCEF Doc. 91) that the denial of the motion is without prejudice, with leave to
renew upon completion of further discovery, and to provide a date for a preliminary conference to
be held.
153424/2020 LORA DE ALCANTARA, NIDIA ET AL vs. FANUC LTD. ET AL Page 1 of& Motion No. 002
[* 1] 1 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/26/2024 03:53 PM INDEX NO. 153424/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/26/2024
Background In this product liability action, Nidia Lora de Alcantara alleges that she was injured at
work on April 28, 2017, while operating a FANUC Robodrill at Putnam Precision Products, Inc.
("Putnam") (NYSCEF Docs. 39, 48). Ms. Alcantara's husband, Ricardo Alcantara (Mr. and Ms.
Alcantara, collectively "Plainti:tr') brought a derivative cause of action for damages.
In the first cause of action, Plaintiff claims that all Defendants are strictly liable because
the FANUC Robodrill was "dangerous and defective" in its design and manufacture and
contained inadequate warnings (NYSCEF Doc. 1).
The second cause of action alleges negligence on the part of all Defendants in that the
injuries "were caused solely through the fault, negligence and culpable conduct" of the Defendants
(NYSCEF Doc. 1). The Complaint did not allege any separate basis for negligence other than the
defective design, manufacturing, and warnings. The third cause of action alleges breach of "all
warranties" made in connection with the Fanuc Robodrill (NYSCEF Doc. 1).
Plaintiffs also named FANUC Ltd., FANUC Corporation, FANUC Robotics Corporation,
and FANUC EDM Corporation as Defendants, but never served these entities.
Parties' Contentions
FAC seeks summary judgment dismissing the complaint and cross-claim of Methods
Machine Tools, Inc. ("Methods") for common law indemnification and contribution because it
was not in the chain of distribution of the Robodrill involved in the accident. FAC asserts that it
did not design, manufacture, purchase, distribute, supply, sell or service the subject Robodrill and,
as such, cannot be held liable under theories of strict products liability or breach of warranties as a
matter oflaw (NYSCEF Docs. 38, 39, 49).
In opposition, Methods claims that the motion should be denied in its entirety pursuant to
CPLR § 3212(f), without leave to renew, since the motion is premature due to substantial,
material and necessary outstanding discovery, including responses to Plainti:trs Notice for
153424/2020 LORA DE ALCANTARA, NIDIA ET AL vs. FANUC LTD. ET AL Page 2of6 Motion No. 002
[* 2] 2 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/26/2024 03:53 PM INDEX NO. 153424/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/26/2024
Discovery and Inspection and Interrogatories dated September 2, 2022, and depositions of all
parties and non-party witnesses (NYSCEF Doc. 53).
Additionally, per the Preliminary Conference Order of this Court dated September 1,
2022, FAC was to produce a witness for a deposition on January 19, 2023. Instead, FAC
submitted only the Affidavit of its Vice President. Methods argues that the outstanding discovery
must be completed prior to FAC seeking summary judgment since issues raised in the instant
motion require information that is within the exclusive knowledge or possession of other parties.
Methods also points to an online press release, dated December 17, 2013, on Defendant
FAC's website announcing that FANUC had merged all of its operations in the Americas into a
single company named FANUC America Corporation (NYSCEF Doc. 59). Therefore, further
discovery is needed to explore whether FANUC FA America Corporation is another name for, or
a predecessor company to, FAC which would place FAC in the chain of distribution (NYSCEF
Doc. 53).
Methods seeks additional facts through discovery, including whether FAC, as the
successor entity of FANUC Robotics Corporation and/or FANUC EDM Corporation, can be
found to have distributed, supplied, sold and/or serviced Robodrills prior to Plaintiffs accident.
Method asserts that questions of fact exist as to the functional unity and control between
FAC and Fanuc Corporation f/k/a/ Fanuc Ltd. and that discovery is needed to explore any control,
supervision and/or management that FAC may have exercised over the operations of FANUC
Corp. in the Americas prior to the accident, or whether a principal/agent relationship existed
(NYSCEF Doc. 53).
Standard
The proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of
entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material
issues of fact from the case (Winegradv New York Univ. Med Ctr., 64 NY2d 851,853 [1985];
153424/2020 LORA DE ALCANTARA, NIDIA ET AL vs. FANUC LTD. ET AL Page 3 of 6 Motion No. 002
3 of 6 [* 3] FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/26/2024 03:53 PM INDEX NO. 153424/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/26/2024
Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320,324 [1986]). Failure to make aprimafacie showing
requires a denial of the motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers (Id.) The
moving party's "burden is a heavy one" and the "facts must be viewed in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party" (Jacobsen v New York City Health and Hosps. Corp., 22 NY3d 824,
833 [2014]). Once this showing is made, the burden shifts to the opposing party to produce
evidentiary proof, in admissible form, sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of
fact which require a trial of the action" (Alvarez at 324; Zuckerman v City ofNew York, 49 NY2d
557,562 [1980]; Vega v Restani Const. Corp., 18 NY3d 499,503 [2012]). Summary judgment is
a drastic remedy and should not be granted where there is any doubt as to the existence of a
triable issue of fact (Rotuba Extruders, Inc. v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223,231 [1978]). Mere
conclusions, speculation, or unsubstantiated assertions are insufficient to defeat a motion for
summary judgment (Zuckerman at 562; Butler-Francis v New York City Hous. Auth., 38 AD3d
433, 434 [1st Dept 2007]).
Discussion
CPLR § 3212(f) permits denial of a summary judgment motion as premature, and the
nonmovant to have further discovery, when it appears that "facts essential to justify opposition
may exist but cannot then be stated" (Sapp v S.J.C. 308 Lenox Ave. Family Ltd Partnership, 150
AD3d 525,527 [1st Dept 2016]).
To avail oneself of CPLR § 3212(f), a party must demonstrate that the needed proof is
within the exclusive knowledge of the moving party, that the claims in opposition are supported
by something other than mere hope or conjecture, and that the party has at least made some
attempt to discover facts at variance with the moving party's proof (Voluto Ventures, LLC v
Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP, 44 AD3d 557 [1st Dept 2007] [internal citations
omitted]). A grant of summary judgment cannot be avoided by a claimed need for discovery
153424/2020 LORA DE ALCANTARA, NIDIA ET AL vs. FANUC LTD. ET AL Page 4 of& Motion No. 002
[* 4] 4 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/26/2024 03:53 PM INDEX NO. 153424/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/26/2024
unless some evidentiary basis is offered to suggest that discovery may lead to relevant evidence
(Bailey v New York City Tr. Auth., 270 AD2d 156, 157 [1st Dept 2000]).
It is clear, however, that a party should be permitted a reasonable opportunity for
disclosure prior to the determination of a summary judgment motion (Boyer v New York Prop.
Ins. Underwriters Ass'n, 90 AD2d 737, 738 [1st Dept 1982]). In light of the incomplete state of
discovery, including the fact that no party has yet been deposed, the summary judgment motion is
premature (Wilson v Yemen Realty Corp., 14 AD3d 544,545 [1st Dept 2010]). Plaintiff is entitled
to complete discovery in their effort to establish the precise relationships among the various
FANUC entities and their relationship to FAC. Significantly, this information is solely within the
control of defendants (Curry v Hundreds ofHats, Inc., 146 AD3d 593,594 [1st Dept 2017]).
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Defendant FANUC America Corp.'s motion for an order for summary
judgment dismissing all claims and cross-claims against it, is denied, without prejudice, with leave
to renew upon the completion of further discovery; and it is further
ORDERED that on or before January 31, 2025, the active parties shall submit a proposed
preliminary conference order via e-mail to SFC-Part33@nycourts.gov. If the parties are unable to
agree to a proposed preliminary conference order, the parties are directed to appear for an in-
person preliminary conference on February 5, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. in Room 442, 60 Centre Street,
New York, New York; and it is further
[The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.]
153424/2020 LORA DE ALCANTARA, NIDIA ET AL vs. FANUC LTD. ET AL Page 5of6 Motion No. 002
[* 5] 5 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/26/2024 03:53 PM INDEX NO. 153424/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 93 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/26/2024
ORDERED that within ten days of entry, counsel for Defendant FANUC America Corp.
shall serve a copy of this Decision and Order with notice of entry on all parties to this action; and
it is further
This constitutes the Amended Decision and Order of the court.
12/26/2024 DATE MARY V. ROSADO, J.S.C.
CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
GRANTED 0 DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT □ REFERENCE
153424/2020 LORA DE ALCANTARA, NIDIA ET AL vs. FANUC LTD. ET AL Page& of& Motion No. 002
[* 6] 6 of 6