Defendant BKC should have been granted summary judgment. The record shows the relationship between BKC and defendant Jamfro Corporation to be merely franchisor-franchisee, and there is no showing of the existence of a parent-subsidiary relationship, let alone of the means by which BKC purportedly exercised the complete domination and control of Jamfro's daily operations or how such control resulted in plaintiff's injury (see, Pebble Cove Homeowners' Assn. v. Fidelity N.Y., 153 A.D.2d 843; Gulf W. Corp. v. New York Times Co., 81 A.D.2d 772; Musman v. Modern Deb, 50 A.D.2d 761) BKC surrendered control of the premises over 15 years prior to the occurrence that resulted in plaintiff's claim. The suggestion that certain terms of the subject franchise agreement, such as BKC's right to terminate the agreement if it disapproved of the franchisee's conduct or its right to re-enter the premises, provide a basis for imposing liability on BKC is without merit (see, Dalzell v. McDonald's Corp., 220 A.D.2d 638, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 815; Balsam v. Delma Eng'g Corp., 139 A.D.2d 292, lv dismissed in part and denied in part 73 N.Y.2d 783).
Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Wallach, JJ.