As defendant acknowledges, the duty imposed on building owners under Multiple Dwelling Law § 78 to keep their buildings in good repair is no more general than the duty imposed on the City under New York City Charter § 2903 (b) to keep its streets in good repair, and if the Charter provision is recognized as a valid predicate for General Municipal Law § 205-e liability (see, Gonzalez v. Iocovello, 93 N.Y.2d 539, Appeal Nos. 122, 123 [June 30, 19991, 1999 N.Y. LEXIS 1422, * * 15-17, affg Cosgriff v. City of New York, 241 A.D.2d 382; Simons v. City of New York, 252 A.D.2d 451; Palazzolla v. City of New York, 248 A.D.2d 250), so too should Multiple Dwelling Law § 78 be recognized as a valid predicate for General Municipal Law § 205-a liability. Concerning interest, we reject plaintiff's claim of entitlement thereto from the time of the verdict in the prior action between these parties, which was set aside on the basis of pre-amendment General Municipal Law § 205-a (Hayes v. City of New York, 169 Misc.2d 170, affd 231 A.D.2d 402, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 803) but used by the IAS court in this action as the measure of plaintiff's damages. However, we modify to award interest from the date of entry of the order granting plaintiff summary judgment, that being the time that plaintiff's right to compensation was. "fixed in law" (see, Love v. State of New York, 78 N.Y.2d 540, 544).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.