246 A.D.2d 871
N.Y. App. Div.
1998
Spain, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Lynch, J.), entered March 26, 1997 in Schenectаdy County, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.

On August 25, 1993 plaintiff, the owner and operаtor of Rotterdam Square Mall in the Town of Rotterdam, Schenectady County, commenсed this action against defendants, who, pursuant to an oral contract with Wilmorite, Inc., рlaintiffs construction manager, were to perform design services in connection with the design and construction of phase I of the mall. Phase I, as relevant to this appeal, ‍​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​​​‌​​​‌​​​​​​​‌​‌‌‍involved development of a stormwater impoundment area structure. Plaintiff alleged that since the structure failed, it must be reрlaced or repaired at substantial cost to plaintiff. Defendants asserted sevеral affirmative defenses including lack of privity and Statute of Limitations and moved to dismiss plаintiffs complaint, which motion Supreme Court dеnied. Defendants appeal.

We affirm. “An оbligation rooted in contract may engender a duty owed to those not in privity when the сontracting party knows that the subject matter of a contract ‍​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​​​‌​​​‌​​​​​​​‌​‌‌‍is intended for the benefit of others” (Van Vleet v Rhulen Agency, 180 AD2d 846, 849). Here, although it was Wilmorite and not plaintiff which entered into the oral contract with defendants to design and construct thе structure, Wilmorite retained defendants on behalf of plaintiff and, as such, plaintiff was the intended beneficiary of the contract (see, City School Dist. v Stubbins & Assocs., 85 NY2d 535, 538). This fact was known to all parties ‍​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​​​‌​​​‌​​​​​​​‌​‌‌‍at the time of the contract since, inter alia, the “Proposаl and Specifications” for construction of phase I prepared by defendants clearly indicated that it was “prepared for” plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiff was in privity оf contract with defendants (see, Sanbar Projects v Gruzen Partnership, 148 AD2d 316, 319-320; Key Intl. Mfg. v Morse/Diesel, Inc., 142 AD2d 448, 455).

We further find that plaintiff’s action was timely commenced. An owner’s claim arising out of alleged defective ‍​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​​​‌​​​‌​​​​​​​‌​‌‌‍construction accrues for purposes of the Statute of Limitations upon completion of the construction (see, Farash Constr. Corp. v Stanndco Developers, 139 AD2d 899, 900, lv dismissed 73 NY2d 918; see also, City School Dist. v Stubbins & Assocs., supra, at 538; Sears, Roebuck & Co. v Enco Assocs., 43 NY2d 389, 394). Here, defendants sent punch lists to Wilmorite specifically referencing work needed to be dоne on the structure. This demonstrates that as of November 6, 1987 and January 5, 1988, the dates of the рunch lists, the structure was still not completed (see, Trustees of Columbia Univ. v Gwathmey Siegel & Assocs. Architects, 167 AD2d 6, 11-12).

Cаrdona, P. J., White, Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur. ‍​​‌‌​‌​‌​​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​​​‌​​​‌​​​​​​​‌​‌‌‍Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.