FABIAN A. ONETTI Plaintiffs-res-ap, v. THE GATSBY CONDOMINIUM Defendants-Appellants-res, INTELL 65 EAST 96, LLC, def-res, OMER REALTY, LLC def

11069-11070-11071. FABIAN A. ONETTI Plaintiffs-res-ap, v. THE GATSBY CONDOMINIUM Defendants-Appellants-res, INTELL 65 EAST 96, LLC, def-res, OMER REALTY, LLC def — Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, White Plains (Joseph A.H. McGovern of counsel), for appellantsres — Brill & Meisel, New York (Allen H. Brill of counsel), for respondentsap — Ganfer & Shore, LLP, New York (Virginia K. Trunkes of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Edmead, J.), entered March 9, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant Intell 65 East 96, LLC’s (Intell) motion for summary judgment, and denied defendant The Gatsby Condominium’s (Gatsby) motion for summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs’ negligence and breach of contract claims, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of denying Intell’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ negligence claim, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered May 29, 2012, which granted Gatsby’s motion to reargue, and upon granting reargument, adhered to its original decision denying Gatsby’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ negligence and breach of contract claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered September 12, 2012, which denied Gatsby’s motion for leave to amend its answer to add three counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Intell did not establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on plaintiffs’ negligence claim. Contrary to Intell’s claim, as the owner of the apartment building, it had a duty to exercise reasonable care in maintaining the property, including the wiring, in a reasonably safe condition under the circumstances prior to the condominium conversion (see Kush v. City of Buffalo, 59 NY2d 26, 29-30 [1983]). Thereafter, as the sponsor of the condominium conversion, Intell owed a nondelegable duty to plaintiffs to keep the condominium in good repair (see Liberman v. Cayre Synergy 73rd LLC, 108 AD3d 426 [1st Dept 2013]). Further, there are issues of fact as to whether Intell had actual or constructive notice of the defective electrical wiring that allegedly caused the fire. Intell has not established as a matter of law that the origin of the fire was not within the “common elements” of the condominium.