ESCOTO v. CITY OF NEW YORK (2026)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Paul L. Alpert, J.), entered July 3, 2025, which denied the motion of defendant Crothall Healthcare, Inc. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleges that she was injured when she tripped and fell on a raised floor mat at property owned by defendant the City of New York. The City leased the property to New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (N.Y.CHHC), which was plaintiff's employer.

Crothall failed to establish prima facie entitlement to summary judgment because it failed to demonstrate that it did not owe plaintiff a contractual duty of care.  Crothall maintains that its housekeeping management contract with NYCHHC did not create a general tort duty that can support plaintiff's claims against it.  However, on its motion, Crothall failed to submit that contract or other proof of the contract's terms.  Without that evidence, it cannot be determined whether plaintiff was an intended third-party beneficiary of the contract (see Colbourn v. ISS Intl. Serv. Sys., Inc., 304 A.D.2d 369, 369 [1st Dept 2003] ).  Furthermore, Crothall's witness was unsure if he had previously reviewed the contract, and he was unable to definitively testify to its terms.  Even assuming without deciding that a duty of care existed, the record nevertheless presents issues of fact as to whether Crothall displaced NYCHHC's duty to maintain its premises safely, and therefore may be liable to plaintiff (see Espinal v. Melville Snow Contrs., 98 N.Y.2d 136, 140 [2002];  cf.  Perkins v. Crothall Healthcare, Inc., 148 AD3d 1189, 1191 [2d Dept 2017] ).

We have considered Crothall's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.