Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Gerald Lebovits, J.), dated June 6, 2014, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted plaintiff's cross motion to amend the complaint.

Per Curiam.

Order (Gerald Lebovits, J.), dated June 6, 2014, modified to deny plaintiff's cross motion to amend the complaint; as modified, order affirmed, without costs.

We agree that this action, seeking property damages allegedly caused by the negligent design and construction of a condominium apartment building, is not ripe for summary dismissal. The defendant construction manager failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that plaintiff's cause of action is barred by either of the two written releases relied upon by defendant. The January 27, 2010 "Board Release" did not expressly identify defendant as a releasee, and it cannot presently be determined on the prediscovery record now before us whether defendant qualified as an "agent" or "consultant" of the named releasees, as the quoted terms are used in the release. Nor, at this juncture, does defendant fare better with respect to the July 6, 2011 release that defendant did sign, inasmuch as plaintiff was not a party to that release nor shown on this record to be a successor or assignee of the named releasor (see City of Syracuse v Williams, 45 AD3d 1491, 1492 [2007]; Birnbaum v Yonkers Contr. Co., 272 AD2d 355, 356-357 [2000]).

Plaintiff's cross motion to amend the complaint should have been denied because the proposed amendment lacked merit. Plaintiff cannot assert a claim as a third-party beneficiary of a contract between defendant and the condominium owner (150 Berry LLC), since that contract by its express terms negates any intent to permit enforcement by third-parties (see Specialists Entertainment, Inc. v Moore, 115 AD3d 424 [2014]; Board of Mgrs. of Alexandria