Opinion
April 27, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.).
Ordered that the appeal of the defendant Sunrise Mall Associates is dismissed for failure to perfect the same in accordance with the rules of this Court ( see, 22 NYCRR 670.8 [e]); and it is further,
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from by the defendant American Safety Management, on the law, that defendant's motion is granted, the complaint and cross claims are dismissed insofar as asserted against it, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed; and it is further,
Ordered that American Safety Management is awarded one bill of costs.
In this case, "the contract between the mall owners and the security [company] contains no expression of intent to confer a contractual benefit on the plaintiff as a member of the general public" ( Buckley v. I.B.I. Sec. Serv., 157 A.D.2d 645). There is, therefore, no basis in contract law on which to impose liability upon the defendant American Safety Management (hereinafter American Safety) ( see, Buckley v. I.B.I. Sec. Serv., supra; see also, King v. Resource Prop. Mgt. Co., 245 A.D.2d 10; Boltz v. National Amusements, 227 A.D.2d 363; Guarcello v. Rouse SI Shopping Ctr., 204 A.D.2d 685; Abramian v. Travellers Hotel Assocs., 203 A.D.2d 398). Further, under the particular facts presented here, there is no issue of fact as to whether American Safety's employees created a special relationship with the injured plaintiff or undertook a special duty upon which the injured plaintiff detrimentally relied ( see generally, Sostre v. City of N Y Hous. Auth., 150 A.D.2d 766; see also, Guston Furs v. Comet Realty Corp., 225 A.D.2d 417; cf., Bloom v. City of New York, 123 A.D.2d 594).
Bracken, J.P., O'Brien, Pizzuto and Joy, JJ., concur.