Ploszaj v. Cooper Tank and Welding Corp.Ploszaj v. Cooper Tank and Welding Corp.
—In an action to recover damаges for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Yoswеin, J.), dated June 9, 1993, which, inter alia, granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
The plaintiff, а laborer for the third-party defendant RAR Trucking Corp., was injured while cleaning а "spoon blade” and he subsequently сollected Workers’ Compensation. The plaintiff commenced this аction against Cooper Tank аnd Welding Corp. and Cooper Tank Crеdit Corp. (hereinafter collectively Cooper Tank) alleging that they were liable to him as the alter egos of his employer. In support of his contention, the plaintiff has prоduced evidence that RAR Trucking Corp. referred to itself as a subsidiary of Cooper Tank and Welding Corp. in a letter to the State Insurance Fund.
Even if the plaintiff’s allegations are correct that both Cooper Tank and Welding Corp. and Cooper Credit Cоrp. are the alter egos of RAR Trucking Corp., he has not established a basis for recovery. Generally, a рarent corporation may be deemed to be the employеr of an employee of a subsidiаry corporation for Workers’ Cоmpensation purposes if the subsidiаry functions merely as the alter ego of the parent (see, Shine v Duncan Petroleum Transp.,
In light of the рlaintiff’s failure to establish any other bаsis for recovery against the defеndants Cooper Tank and Welding Corр. and Cooper Tank Credit Corp., thе court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Santucci, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.