Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the appellant's contentions, the Supreme Court did not decide the merits of the case in deciding which parties are subject to the arbitration agreement (see, Matter of Lane [Abel-Bey], 50 N.Y.2d 864). Moreover, we agree that the appellant failed to establish that Carrier Paging Systems, Inc., was the alter ego of its parent, Carrier Communications Corp., which would have allowed the court to pierce the corporate veil and hold a nonsignatory liable on the contracts in question, or that the corporate officers of Carrier Paging Systems, Inc., were personally liable on those contracts (see, Frank Corp. v. Federal Ins. Co., 70 N.Y.2d 966, 967; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562).
We have considered the appellant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, O'Brien and Copertino, JJ., concur.