In Palka v. Servicemaster Mgt. Servs. Corp., 83 NY2d 579 [1994]), the injured party was not a party to the contract, and was injured as a consequence of the defendant vendor's negligent performance of its service contract. In determining whether defendant vendor owed a duty of care to the noncontracting party, the Court of Appeals held that the nexus for a tort relationship between the defendant's contractual obligation and the injured noncontracting plaintiff's reliance and injury must be direct and demonstrable, not incidental or merely collateral (id., at 587). The Court of Appeals went on to find that the defendant vendor owed the noncontracting plaintiff a duty of care because it "undertook to provide a service to Ellis Hospital and did so negligently" and because "its conduct in undertaking that particular service placed [plaintiff] in an unreasonably risky setting greater than that, had [the defendant] never ventured into its hospital servicing role at all" (id.). The Court of Appeals considered the case of a hospital where all maintenance and inspection functions, including that of inspecting the fan which eventually fell and injured the plaintiff, had been assumed by the defendant. The Court found that the entire purpose of the service contract between the hospital and the defendant was for the defendant "to become the sole privatized provider for a safe and clean hospital premises" (at 589), and held that this exclusivity of management and control justified the extension of a duty of care, and hence of tort liability, as to all persons within the foreseeable area of the safety services. The Court scrutinized the agreement with the maintenance company and held that comprehensive nature of the contract created a duty of care to the plaintiff who was injured when a wall mounted fan fell on her as she was tending to a patient. The contract required the maintenance company to inspect, repair and maintain the facility. Where actions are brought by an injured party premised on the negligent performance of the party who contracted to provide a service the court is required to determine whether the contractual obligations undertaken were comprehensive.