In Rahim v. Sottile Sec. Co., 32 AD3d 77 (1st Dept. 2006) the written contract entered into by the security company expressly excluded any possible implication that the plaintiff Rahim could be its intended third-party beneficiary. The Rahim Court reasoned: "In determining whether plaintiff is entitled to take his negligence case against [the security company] Sottile to trial, the "threshold question ... is whether [Sottile] owed a duty of care to [plaintiff]" (Espinal, 98 NY2d at 138). To answer this question, we first look to...the [security] agreement between Duane Reade and Sottile." (Rahim v. Sottile Sec. Co., supra, 32 AD3d at 79-80.) The Rahim Court found to be "of greatest significance in this case, ... paragraph 10 [of the security agreement, which] provided: "It is expressly understood and agreed that this contract is entered into solely for the mutual benefit of the parties herein and that no benefits, rights, duties, or obligations are intended or created by this contract as to third parties not a signatory hereto."" (Rahim v. Sottile Sec. Co., supra, 32 AD3d at 78.) Furthermore, there was no dispute in Rahim on this point, since plaintiff Rahim, himself, had even: "testified that it was his understanding that the purpose of the guard's presence was to watch for shoplifters", and not to protect him. (Rahim v. Sottile Sec. Co., supra, 32 AD3d at 79.)