REBELL v. EMIGRANT SAVINGS BANK

Summary judgment was properly denied as to defendant Emigrant Savings Bank since issues of fact exist as to whether Emigrant created or increased the hazard that is alleged to have caused plaintiff's fall and injury ( see, Quintana v. Mei, 254 A.D.2d 96; Jiuz v. City of New York, 244 A.D.2d 298). However, summary judgment should have been granted to Harvard Maintenance whose contractual obligations to Emigrant did not give rise to a special duty of care to plaintiff ( Palka v. Servicemaster Mgt. Servs. Corp., 83 N.Y.2d 579). We do not dismiss defendant Emigrant's claims against defendant Harvard Maintenance.

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Tom and Saxe, JJ.