Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
We find no merit to the appellants' contention that the Supreme Court should have dismissed the causes of action in question. The allegations in the complaint sufficiently allege that the appellants were in privity, or the functional equivalent thereof, with the plaintiff and its parties in interest and that the latter were the intended third-party beneficiaries of the appellants' contract with the condominium sponsor (see, Ossining Union Free School Dist. v. Anderson LaRocca Anderson, 73 N.Y.2d 417; Board of Mgrs. v. Schuman, Lichtenstein, Claman Efron, 183 A.D.2d 488). Moreover, the plaintiff has raised other issues of fact which preclude summary judgment (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562).
We have considered the appellants' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lawrence, J.P., Copertino, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.