DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.
In support of that branch of its motion which was to dismiss this action as barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law, the defendant failed to proffer competent evidence in admissible form that, at the time of the underlying accident, the owner of the building and the injured plaintiff's employer were the same entity or were separate entities that were mere alter egos of one another (see Workers' Compensation Law § 11; Constantine v. Premier Cab Corp., 295 A.D.2d 303; Kramps v. Goldbetter, 292 A.D.2d 571; Cruceta v. Funnel Equities, 286 A.D.2d 747; Kuznetz v. County of Nassau, 229 A.D.2d 476). Thus, on this record, dismissal of the action on that ground was not warranted.
The defendant did not proffer competent evidence in admissible form as to any other basis to dismiss the action.
RITTER, J.P., ALTMAN, S. MILLER and TOWNES, JJ., concur.