de Alcantara v FANUC Ltd.

2024 NY Slip Op 31096(U)

April 1, 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.
INDEX NO. 153424/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/02/2024

1 of 5

PRESENT: 

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

NEW YORK COUNTY 

HON. MARY V. ROSADO PART 

Justice 

33M 

-·································-····-···-·-····--·-----·---···-·····-··X INDEX NO. 153424/2020 

NIDIA LORA DE ALCANTARA, RICARDO ALCANTARA, 

Plaintiff, 

- V . 

FANUC LTD., FANUC CORPORATION, FANUC AMERICA 

CORPORATION, FANUC ROBOTICS CORPORATION, 

FANUC EDM CORPORATION, METHODS MACHINE 

TOOLS, INC .• FARMINGTON MACHINE TOOLS, LLC 

Defendant. 

··-··-·-··-·--·--···--····-·························-------X 

MOTION DATE 12/02/2023 

MOTION SEQ. NO. 2 

DECISION + ORDER ON 

MOTION 

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 plaintiff\ Nidia Lora de ,\lcantara 

and Ricardo Alcantara, Yelena Graves, Esq. appeared on hehalf of Defendant, FANUC America 

Corporation (''FAC"), and Anthony Bianchi, Esq. appeared on behalf of Defendant, Methods 

Machine Tools Inc., FAC's mmion for an order for summary j udgment dismissing all claims and 

cross•claims against it, is denied. 

Background 

In this product liability action, Nidia Lorn de Alcantara alleges that she was inj ured at 

work on April 28, 2017, while operating a FANUC Robodrill at Putnam Precision Products, foe. 

("Putnam") (NYSCEF Docs. 39, 48). Ms. Alcantara's husband, Ricardo Alcantara (Mr. and Ms 

Alcantara, collectively "Plaintiff") brought a derivative cause of action for damages. 

In the fi rst 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). 

153424/2020 LORA DE ALCANTARA, NIDIA ET AL vs. FANUC LTD. ET AL 

Motion No. 002 

Pago 1 of 5 

[* 1]
INDEX NO. 153424/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/02/2024

2 of 5

The second cause of action alleges negligence on the part of all Defendants in that I.he 

injuries "were caused solely through the fault, negligence and culpable conduct'' of the Defendants 

(NYSCEF Doc. I). 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 "alt 

warranties" made i.n connection with the Fanuc Robodrill (NYSCEF Doc. I). 

Plainti ('f's also named FANUC Ltd., FANUC Corporation, f ANUC Robotics Corporation, 

and FANUC EDM Corporation as Defendants, but never served these entities. 

Parties' Contentions 

FA C seeks summary j udgmenl dismissing the complaint and crnss-claim of Methods 

Machine Tools, Inc. ("Methods") for common law indemni Ii cation and contribution because it 

was not in the chain of distribution of the Robodrill involved in the accident. F AC 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 

matler oflaw (NYSCEF Docs. 38, 39, 49). 

In opposition, Methods claims that the motion should be denied in its entirety pursuant to 

CPLR § 32 12(f), without leave to renew, since the motion i.s premature due to substantial, 

material and necessary outstanding discovery, including responses to Plaintiffs Notice for 

Discovery and Inspection and Interrogatories dated September 2, 2022, and depositions of alt 

parties and non-party w itnesses (NYSCEF Doc. 53). 

Additionally, per the Preliminary Conference Order of this Court dated September I, 

2022, FAC was to produce a witness for a deposition on January 19, 2023. Instead, FAC 

submilled only the Affidavit or its Vice President. l\folhods argues that the outstanding discovery 

must be completed prior to F i\C seeking summary judgment since issues raised in the instant 

motion require information that is within the exclusive knowledge or possession of other parties. 

15342412020 LORA DE ALCANTARA, NIDIA ET AL vs. FANUC LTD. ET AL 

Motion No. 002 

Pago 2 of 5 

[* 2]
INDEX NO. 153424/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/02/2024

3 of 5

Methods also points to an online press release, dated December 17, 2013, on Defendant 

Fi\C's website armouncing 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 FANIJC Fi\ America Corporation is another name for. or 

a predecessor company to, FAC which would place FAC in 1he 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 asse1ts that questions of fact exist as to the functional unity and control between 

FAC and Fanuc Corporation f/k/ai Fanuc Ltd. and that discovery is needed to explore any control, 

supervision and/or management that Fi\C 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 Ji1cie showing of 

entitlement to judgment as a maller of law, tendering sufficient evidence to eliminate any material 

issues of fact from the case (Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]; 

Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Failure lo make a prima(<1cie showing 

requires a denial of the motion, regardless of the sufliciency 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 [2014'1). Once this showing is made, the burden shifts to the opposing palty to produce 

cvidentiary proof, in admissible form, sufficient to establish the existence of material issues of 

fact which require a trial of'lhe action" (Alvarez at 324; 7.uckerman v City <!f'New York, 49 NY2d 

153424/2020 LORA DE ALCANTARA, NIDIA ET AL vs. FANUC LTD. ET AL 

Motion No. 002 

Page 3 of 5 

[* 3]
INDEX NO. 153424/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/02/2024

4 of 5

557,562 l 1980]; Vega v Resrani Const. Corp., 18 l\Y3d 499, 503 [20 12]). Summary judgment is 

a drastic remedy and should not be granted where there is any doubt as lo the existence of a 

triable issue of fact (Roruha Ertruders, Inc. v Ceppos, 46 NY2d 223,23 1 [1978]). Mere 

conclusions, speculation, or unsubstantiated assertions are insufficient to defeat a motion for 

sununary j udgment (:t,uckerman at 562; Butler-Francis v New York City l /ous. Awh., 38 AD3d 

433, 434 [1st Dept 2007]). 

Discussion 

CPLR § 3212(f) permits denial of a summary judgment mo!ion 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 fl st Dept 20 16 J). 

To avail oneself of CPLR § 32l2(f), a party must demonstrate that the needed proof is 

within the exc lusive 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 al 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]). !\ grant of summary judgment cannot he avoided by a c laimed need for discovery 

unless some evident.iary basis is offered to suggest that discovery may lead to relevant evidence 

(13ailey v New York City Tr. Auth., 270 AD2d 156, 157 l I st Dept 2000]). 

]( 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 J\D2d 737, 738 [ I st Dept I 9R2J). In light of the incomplete stale of 

discovery, including the fact that no party has yet been deposed. the summary judgment motion is 

premature (Wilson v Yemen Realty Corp., 74 AD3d 544, 545 11 st Dept 20 I OJ). Plaintiff is entitled 

to complete discovery in their effort to establish the precise relationships among the various 

15342412020 LORA DE ALCANTARA, NIDIA ET AL vs. FANUC LTD. ETAL 

Motion No. 002 

Page 4 of 5 

[* 4]
INDEX NO. 153424/2020

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/02/2024

5 of 5

FAJ\llJC entities and their relationship to FAC. Significantly, this information is solely within the 

control of<lefen<lants (Curry v Hundreds of Hats, Inc. , 146 A.D3d 593,594 List Dept 20 17]). 

Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that De Cendant FANUC America Corp.'s motion for an order for summary 

j udgment dismissing all claims and cross-claims against it, is denied; and it is fu1ther 

ORDERED that on or hefore April 5, 2024, the active parties shall submit a proposed 

preliminary conference order via e-mail to SPC-Pa1t33-Clerk@?.nycou1ts.gov. Ifthc parties arc 

unable to agree to a proposed preliminary conference order, the parties are directed 10 appear for 

an in-person preliminary conference on April 17, 2024 at 9:30 a.m. in Room 442, 60 Centre 

Street, New York, New York; and it is further 

ORDERED that within ten days of entry, counsel for Defendant FANUC America Corp. 

sha ll serve a copy of this Decision and Or<ler with notice of entry on all pa1ties to this action; and 

it is further 

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed l.o enter j udgment accord ingly. 

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the court. 

4/1/2024 

DATE ARY V. ROSADO, J.S.C. 

CHECK ONE: 

APPLICATION: 

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: 

CASE DISPOSED 

GRA,NTEO 

SETTLE ORDER 

0 DENIED 

INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN 

X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION 

GRANTED IN PART 

SUBMIT ORDER 

FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 

15342412020 LORA DE ALCANTARA, NIDIA ET AL vs. FANUC LTD. ET AL 

Motion No. 002 

□ OTHER 

□ REFERENCE 

Page 5 of 5 

[* 5]