New York Child's reliance upon Key International Manufacturing, Inc. v Morse/Diesel, Inc., 142 A.D.2d 448, 536 N.Y.S.2d 792 (2d Dept 1988) is misplaced. In that case, the plaintiff, the owner of the development, sued an architect and an engineer contracted by plaintiff's wholly owned subsidiary for economic loss suffered in con-nection with a construction project involving the development on the basis that it was the third-party beneficiary of the contract. The language in Key International [ supra, at 455], upon which New York Child relies, states:
"where performance is to be made directly to a third party, that party is generally deemed an [*5] intended beneficiary of the contract and is entitled to enforce it . . ."
However, the court distinguished its case from Fourth Ocean Putnam Corp., where the performance, the demoli-tion of the third-party's structure, was also made directly to the third-party, in that there was no indication in Fourth Ocean Putnam Corp., that either the promisor or the promisee intended to benefit the landowner, but ra-ther intended to confer a benefit on the public by removing a dangerous structure.