The motion was properly denied as against the individual defendant since his affidavits in support thereof, asserting that he was not only the owner of the premises at the time of the accident but also the president of HT Co., and therefore plaintiff's co-employee against whom plaintiff's exclusive remedy is workers' compensation ( see Medrano v. Pritchard Indus., 298 A.D.2d 271), lacks documentary support conclusively demonstrating the claimed employment relationship ( see Goshen v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 98 N.Y.2d 314, 326; Four Seasons Hotels v. Vinnik, 127 A.D.2d 310, 318; Rivera v. Mary Immaculate Hosp. Assn., 306 A.D.2d 265). Concerning Todaro Properties, issues of fact exist as to whether, inter alia, it owned or managed the property on the date of the accident and whether it and Todaro are alter egos ( cf. Donatin v. Sea Crest Trading Co., 181 A.D.2d 654). We have considered appellants' other arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.