In Schwarz v. Port Auth. Transit Corp., 305 N.J.Super. 581, 585-86, 702 A.2d 1351 (App.Div.1997), certif. denied, 153 N.J. 214, 708 A.2d 65 (1998), a patron of the defendants train system was assaulted while walking to the defendants terminal, on property owned by the City of Philadelphia. The concourse upon which the plaintiff was walking when injured was used by pedestrians in the same manner as a public street. Id. at 584, 586, 702 A.2d 1351. In reviewing the grant of summary judgment to the defendant, we held that the scope of the duty owed by the defendant was a legal question for the court to decide, based on the totality of the circumstances. Id.at 589-90, 702 A.2d 1351. There, the concourse was used in the same manner as a public street, and was patrolled by city police, not the defendants employees. Under these circumstances, "defendants duty of care for the safety of its patrons may not be extended into the area patrolled by the Philadelphia police." Id. at 590, 702 A.2d 1351. Significantly, we concluded that, pursuant to its lease with Philadelphia, the defendant had no authority to undertake security to protect its patrons. Ibid. Under those circumstances, we observed that it would be inappropriate to impose a duty on the defendant. Ibid.