In Espinal v. Melville Snow Contractors, Inc., 98 NY2d 136, 773 N.E.2d 485, 746 N.Y.S.2d 120 (2002), the plaintiff slipped on ice and alleged that the defendant, who contracted with a property owner to remove snow, was negligent. (Id. at 138). The court held that the snow removal company's contractual obligation to the property owner did not create a duty of care to a third party, unless the "putative wrongdoer has . . . launched a force or instrument of harm" (id. at 139), explaining that "launching an instrument of harm" is the equivalent of "creating or exacerbating a condition" (id. at 142-143). The Court recognized three situations where there may be a question of fact as to whether the duty assumed by Modern Sprinkler extended to the plaintiffs and "in which a party who enters into a contract to render services may be said to have assumed a duty of care-and thus be potentially liable in tort - to third persons: (1) where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his 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 the other party's duty to maintain the premises safely (Espinal, supra, 136 ). In Espinal v. Melville Snow Contractors, Inc., the Court concluded that a contractor was not liable to a third-party in a case involving a slip and fall on ice. In that case, plaintiff slipped and fell on an icy condition. Id. the owner of the premises therein had contracted with a contractor for the removal of ice and snow from its premises. Id. Plaintiff alleged that the snow had not been properly removed and that the contractor created the condition which caused her fall. Id. The Court granted the contractor summary judgment, finding, that by clearing snow as the contract required, the contractor had not created a dangerous condition, and as such was not liable under that exception to the general rule. Id. Further, the contractor was not liable under the exclusive control exception to the general rule, since under the contract between the contractor and the owner, the owner retained it's duty to maintain and inspect the premises. Id. The Court of Appeals stated that a party who enters into a contract to render services may be said to have assumed a duty of care and thus be potentially liable in tort to third persons under the following circumstances: "where the contracting party, in failing to exercise reasonable care in the performance of his 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 the other party's duties to maintain the premises safely." (Espinal, 98 N.Y.2d at 140.) The Court concluded that defendant, a contractor, was not liable to plaintiff for her alleged slip and fall on ice. Specifically, plaintiff slipped and fell on an icy condition, which defendant, as per a contract with the owner of the premises, was charged with abating (id. at 137-138, 142). Specifically, plaintiff alleged that the snow within the parking lot of the premises she was traversing had not been properly removed and that, thus, the contractor created the condition which caused her fall. (id.). In granting defendant's motion for summary judgment, the court reiterated the well settled rule that "under our decisional law a contractual obligation, standing alone, will generally not give rise to tort liability in favor of a third party" (id. at 138). In discussing the exceptions to the foregoing rule, the court nevertheless held that by clearing snow as the contract required, the contractor had not created a dangerous condition, and as such was not liable under plaintiff's theory that the contractor created the condition alleged (id. at 142). Further, the court held that defendant was not liable under the exclusive control exception to the general rule, since as per the contract between the contractor and the owner, the owner retained its duty to maintain and inspect the premises (id. at 141).