ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On the record presented, there is no basis for disregarding the evidence demonstrating that the injured plaintiff's employer and the owner of the property where the injury occurred are distinct legal entities (compare Macchirole v. Giamboi, 97 N.Y.2d 147; Heritage v. Van Patten, 59 N.Y.2d 1017; Cipriano v. FYM Assocs., 117 A.D.2d 770, with Mattarelliano v. Moish Gas Stas., 242 A.D.2d 685; Rosenburg v. Angiuli Buick, 220 A.D.2d 654; Casas v. 559 Warren St. Realty Corp., 211 A.D.2d 742; Kaplan v. Bayley Seton Hosp., 201 A.D.2d 461; Bernardo v. Melville Indus. Assocs., 148 A.D.2d 486). Thus, the Supreme Court properly searched the record and granted the plaintiffs summary judgment striking the affirmative defense based on the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law (see Workers' Compensation Law § 29).
PRUDENTI, P.J., RITTER, FRIEDMANN and McGINITY, JJ., concur.