NEW YORK the privilege being personal, the consequences are limited to the witness that invokes it (id. at 45, 427 N.Y.S.2d 961, 405 N.E.2d 205). Thus, where the privilege is asserted by a nonparty witness, no adverse inference may be drawn (State v. Markowitz, 273 A.D.2d 637, 646, 710 N.Y.S.2d 407, lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 770, 722 N.Y.S.2d 473, 745 N.E.2d 393). Access Capital, Inc. v. DeCicco, 302 A.D.2d 48, 52, 752 N.Y.S.2d 658, 661 (2002) While no adverse inference typically arises from the invocation of the privilege by a nonparty witness (see Access Capital v. DeCicco, 302 A.D.2d 48, 52, 752 N.Y.S.2d 658 [2002]; State of New York v. Markowitz, 273 A.D.2d 637, 646, 710 N.Y.S.2d 407 [2000], lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 770, 722 N.Y.S.2d 473, 745 N.E.2d 393 [2000] ), that rule is not inflexible. The inference may be appropriate where the witness is a former party who settled, the testimony in question is directly relevant to an issue before the jury and the party being *838 burdened by the adverse inference may be held vicariously liable due to the witness's actions Searle v. Cayuga Med. Ctr. at Ithaca, 28 A.D.3d 834, 837 38, 813 N.Y.S.2d 552, 555 amended on reconsideration, 817 N.Y.S.2d 922 (App. Div. 2006) While it is true that an adverse inference may not generally be drawn against a party when a non-party asserts the privilege (see Access Capital v. DeCicco, 302 A.D.2d 48, 52, 752 N.Y.S.2d 658 [1st Dep't 2002]; State v. Markowitz, 273 A.D.2d 637, 646, 710 N.Y.S.2d 407 [3rd Dep't 2000], lv. denied 95 N.Y.2d 770, 722 N.Y.S.2d 473, 745 N.E.2d 393 [2000] ), the Courts in this State have recognized several exceptions to this rule, two of which apply in this case. One of these exceptions deals with the situation where a corporate employee, who is the alter ego of his or her corporate employer, refuses to testify on Fifth Amendment grounds. EFTA01206912