In Flynn v. Niagara Univ., 198 AD2d 262 (2d Dept. 1993) the Court explained that: "there is no merit to defendants' contention that they had no obligation to the plaintiff under the security services contract between them and Niagara University, because of their allegation that there was no language in the contract which indicated an intention to confer a direct benefit upon the plaintiff ... The contract does not specify the duties of the security guards, nor is there any language which would limit the duties of the guards to protection of property and not students (see, Bernal v. Pinkerton's Inc., 52 AD2d 760, 382 NYS2d 769, affd 41 NY2d 938, 394 NYS2d 638, 363 NE2d 362). Indeed, there is language in the addendum to the contract which indicates that the guards' training included "First Aid" and "CPR", all of which suggests that the guards were hired to benefit, at least in part, the students on campus." (Flynn v. Niagara Univ., supra, 198 AD2d at 264.)