Ordered that the order dated April 6, 1990, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated July 6, 1990, is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.
Once a moving party has demonstrated an entitlement to summary judgment, the party opposing the motion must demonstrate, by admissible evidence, the existence of a factual issue requiring a trial of the action, or tender a reasonable excuse for the failure to do so (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). The documentation submitted in opposition to the motions for summary judgment was devoid of evidentiary facts in support of the plaintiffs' contention that the defendants constituted a single legal unit.
Generally, "`[c]ourts will only pierce the corporat[e] veil and hold two corporations to constitute a single legal unit, where one is so related to, or organized, or controlled by, the other as to be its instrumentality or alter ego'" (Matter of Total Health Care Indus. v Department of Social Servs., 144 A.D.2d 678, 679, quoting Ioviero v Ciga Hotels, 101 A.D.2d 852, 853). The plaintiffs have failed to satisfy their burden of establishing that there is a basis on which to pierce the corporate veil in the instant case (see, Ravel v Dirco Enters., 159 A.D.2d 564). Balletta, J.P., O'Brien, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.