Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The plaintiff was assaulted by three assailants on a public walkway outside an apartment building that was owned by the defendant Fairview Associates, and managed by the defendant Carmon Realty Co. (hereinafter Carmon). A security guard, whose employer has agreed to provide Carmon with a security system for the building, was unable to stop the attack, and left the scene midway through the attack to call the police. The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for his injuries.
There was no common-law duty on the part of these defendants to protect the plaintiff from an assault on a walkway outside the building, and the contract between Carmon and the security guard's employer contained no expression of intent to confer a contractual benefit on the plaintiff as a member of the general public ( see, Charleen F. v. Cord Meyer Dev. Corp., 212 A.D.2d 572; Concepcion v. New York City Hous. Auth., 207 A.D.2d 857; Sanchez v. New York City Hous. Auth., 194 A.D.2d 613, Buckley v. I.B.I, Sec. Serv., 157 A.D.2d 645). Furthermore, although the plaintiff argued that the security guard assumed a duty to prevent the assault when he attempted to stop the attack, the plaintiff was unable to prove that he was put in a worse position by the guard's actions ( see, Nallan v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc., 50 N.Y.2d 507; Gordon v. Muchnick, 180 A.D.2d 715).
Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.