Opinion
April 14, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Oswego County, Hurlbutt, J.
Present — Callahan, J.P., Pine, Balio, Lawton and Doerr, JJ.
Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied and complaint reinstated. Memorandum: Although a parent corporation may be deemed to be the employer of an employee of a subsidiary corporation for Workers' Compensation purposes if the subsidiary functions merely as the alter ego of the parent (see, Shine v Duncan Petroleum Transp., 60 N.Y.2d 22; Pappas v Greek Archdiocese, 178 A.D.2d 104; Carusone v Three Ctrs. [OLROHO] Assocs., 124 A.D.2d 317; Daisernia v Co-Operative G.L.F. Holding Corp., 26 A.D.2d 594), Supreme Court erred in determining as a matter of law that Oswego Castings Corp., plaintiff's employer, was the alter ego of its parent, Oberdorfer Foundries, Inc. In order for corporations to be considered alter egos, "there must be direct intervention by the parent in the management of the subsidiary to such an extent that `the subsidiary's paraphernalia of incorporation, directors and officers' are completely ignored" (Billy v Consolidated Mach. Tool Corp., 51 N.Y.2d 152, 163, quoting Lowendahl v Baltimore Ohio R.R. Co., 247 App. Div. 144, 155, affd 272 N.Y. 360). The parent corporation must exercise complete domination and control of the subsidiary's everyday operations (Pebble Cove Homeowners' Assn. v Fidelity N.Y., 153 A.D.2d 843; see also, Matter of Sbarro Holding [Shiaw Tien Yuan], 91 A.D.2d 613, 614; 13 N.Y. Jur 2d, Business Relationships, § 30, at 297). The evidence presented by defendant failed to prove as a matter of law the requisite level of Oberdorfer's control over Oswego's everyday operations. That issue must be determined at trial. Consequently, defendant's motion for summary judgment should have been denied.