de Alcantara v. FANUC Ltd.

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

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 CORPORAT ION, FANUC AMER ICA CORPORATION, FANUC ROBOTICS CORPORATION, DECISION + ORDER ON FANUC EDM CORPORATION, METHODS MACHINE TOOLS, INC .•FARMINGTON MACHINE TOOLS, LLC 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 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 derivati ve 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 Pago 1 of 5 Motion No. 002

[* 1] 1 of 5

INDEX NO. 153424/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/02/2024

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 Robodri ll (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 indemn i Ii cation 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

matler o flaw (NYSCEF Docs. 38, 39, 49).

In opposition, Methods claims that the motion shou ld 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 o f alt

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

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

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

submilled on ly the Affidavi t or its Vice President. l\folhods argues that the outstanding discovery

must be completed prior to Fi\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 A L vs. FANUC LTD. ET AL Pago 2 of 5 Motion No. 002

[* 2] 2 of 5

INDEX NO. 153424/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/02/2024

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, incl uding 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 Fan uc 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 A LCANTARA, NIDIA ET AL vs. FANUC LTD. ET AL Page 3 of 5 Motion No. 002

[* 3] 3 of 5

INDEX NO. 153424/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/02/2024

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

a drastic remedy and shoul d 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 AD3 d

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 exi st but cannot then be stated" (Sapp v S.J. C 308 Lenox A ve. Family Ltd Partnership, 150

AD3d 525, 527 fl st Dept 20 16J).

To avail oneself of CPLR § 32l 2(f), a party must demonstrate that the needed proof is

within the exc lusi ve 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 o f 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 11st Dept 20 I OJ). Plaintiff is enti tled

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

15342412020 LORA DE A LCANTARA, NIDIA ET AL vs. FANUC LTD. ETAL Page 4 of 5 Motion No. 002

[* 4] 4 of 5

INDEX NO. 153424/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 73 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/02/2024

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

control of<lefen<lants (Curry v Hundreds ofHats, 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 Apri l 5, 2024, the active parties shall subm it a proposed

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

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

an in-person preli minary 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 Decis ion 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: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

GRA,NTEO 0 DENIED GRANTED IN PART □ OTHER APPLICATION : SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPO INTMENT □ REFERENCE

15342412020 LORA DE ALCANTARA, NIDIA ET AL vs. FANUC LTD. ET AL Page 5 of 5 Motion No. 002

[* 5] 5 of 5