Majority
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
On January 12, 2011, the plaintiff Erik Koelling allegedly was injured when he slipped and fell on a patch of ice in the parking lot of the North Shore University Hospital at Plainview. Thereafter, he, and his wife suing derivatively (hereinafter together the plaintiffs), commenced this action against Central General Community Services, Inc., North Shore Community Services at Plainview, Inc., and North Shore University Hospital at Plainview (hereinafter collectively the hospital defendants). They subsequently amended the complaint to add as a defendant Renato Grella Contracting, Inc. (hereinafter RGC), the company hired by the hospital defendants to perform snow and ice removal services. The hospital defendants and RGC, among other things, filed cross claims against one another.
After certain depositions were conducted, the hospital defendants and RGC separately moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against each of them. The Supreme Court granted the separate motions, and the plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.
“A property owner will be held liable for a slip-and-fall accident involving snow and ice on its property only when it created the dangerous condition which caused the accident or had actual or constructive notice of its existence” (Cuillo v Fairfield Prop. Servs., L.P., 112 AD3d 777 , 778 [2013]; see Scott v Avalonbay Communities, Inc., 125 AD3d 839 , 839-840 [2015]; Mignogna v 7-Eleven, Inc., 76 AD3d 1054 [2010]; Crosthwaite v Acadia Realty Trust, 62 AD3d 823 [2009]). Here, the hospital
The Supreme Court also properly granted that branch of RGC’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint insofar as asserted against it. In general, a contractual obligation, standing alone, will not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d 136 , 138-139 [2002]; Glover v John Tyler Enters., Inc., 123 AD3d 882 , 882 [2014]; Rubistello v Bartolini Landscaping, Inc., 87 AD3d 1003 [2011]; Foster v Herbert Slepoy Corp., 76 AD3d 210 , 213 [2010]). Nonetheless, the Court of Appeals has recognized three exceptions to this general rule: (1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his or her duties, launches a force or instrument of harm; (2) where the plaintiff detrimentally relies on the continued performance of the contracting party’s duties; and (3) where the contracting party has entirely displaced another party’s duty to maintain the premises safely (see Espinal v Melville Snow Contrs., 98 NY2d at 138 ; Glover v John Tyler Enters., Inc., 123 AD3d at 882 ).
Here, the plaintiffs alleged that RGC created the dangerous condition that caused the slip and fall and, thus, launched a force or instrument of harm. In support of its motion, however, RGC established, prima facie, that it did not create the allegedly dangerous condition which caused the fall (see Scott v
Rivera, J.P., Roman, LaSalle and Barros, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Cuillo v. Fairfield Property Services, L.P. 112 AD3d 777 at 778 p. 735
- Scott v. Avalonbay Communities, Inc. 125 AD3d 839 at 839-840 p. 735
- Crosthwaite v. Acadia Realty Trust 62 AD3d 823 p. 735
- Haberman v. Meyer 120 AD3d 1301 p. 736
- Edwards v. Mantis, LLC 106 AD3d 689 at 690 p. 736
- Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital 68 NY2d 320 at 324 p. 736
- Reagan v. Hartsdale Tenants Corp. 27 AD3d 716 at 718 p. 736
- Espinal v. Melville Snow Contractors, Inc. 98 NY2d 136 at 138-139 p. 736
- Glover v. John Tyler Enterprises, Inc. 123 AD3d 882 at 882 p. 736
- Rubistello v. Bartolini Landscaping, Inc. 87 AD3d 1003 p. 736
- Gushin v. Whispering Hills Condominium I 96 AD3d 721 at 722 p. 737