Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted Waldbaum's motion for summary judgment (see, Baer v. Great Atl. Pac. Tea Co., 264 A.D.2d 791). However, the Supreme Court improperly denied the cross motion of Gloss Boss for summary judgment because the contract between Gloss Boss and Waldbaum did not constitute a comprehensive and exclusive property maintenance obligation which the parties could have reasonably expected to displace Waldbaum's duty as a landowner to safely maintain the property (see, Sapone v. Commercial Building Maintenance Corp., 262 A.D.2d 393; Agbi v. York International Corp., 249 A.D.2d 430; cf., Palka v. Servicemaster Mgt. Servs. Corp., 83 N.Y.2d 579, 587-588). As such, Gloss Boss did not assume a duty to the plaintiff (see, Sapone v. Commercial Building Maintenance Corp., supra).