Escoto v. City of New York
This text of Escoto v. City of New York (Escoto v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Escoto v City of New York
2026 NY Slip Op 04143
June 30, 2026
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Mercedes Escoto, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v
The City of New York, et al., Defendants, Crothall Healthcare, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.
Decided and Entered: June 30, 2026
Index No. 800191/23|Appeal No. 6977|Case No. 2025-04698|
Before: Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Moulton, Shulman, Rosado, O'neill Levy, JJ.
Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., New York (Robb Denney of counsel), for appellant.
Harris Keenan & Goldfarb PLLC, New York (Jason Steinberg of counsel), for respondent.
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 (NYCHHC), 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 AD2d 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 NY2d 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.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: June 30, 2026
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Escoto v. City of New York, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/escoto-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2026.