Judgment and order dismissing complaint as to defendant city unanimously reversed and motion denied, and order granting motion to dismiss as to defendant Hanford unanimously affirmed, all without costs. Memorandum: The complaint against the city stated a cause of action for negligence against the city. The issuance by it of a certificate of occupancy for a building with violations would be a violation of subdivision 3 of section 302 Mult. Resid. of the Multiple Residence Law. It should have been obvious to the city that in view of subdivision 5 of section 302 Mult. Resid. of the Multiple Residence Law the certificate would be relied on by one purchasing the property. Since there was a duty to issue the certificate in a careful manner with knowledge that the plaintiffs would rely thereon, the city should be liable for the negligent issuance, if such was the case. ( Glanzer v. Shepard, 233 N.Y. 236; Ultramares Corp. v. Touche, 255 N.Y. 170. ) This act did not involve discretion, and the municipality is liable for its wrongful action in issuing it. ( Bernardine v. City of New York, 294 N.Y. 361, 365.) The filing of the notice of claim was timely under sections 50-e Gen. Mun. and 50-i Gen. Mun. of the General Municipal Law, as it was within 90 days after the violations were discovered. The running of the 90-day period should be measured not from the time of the negligent act but from the date the negligent act produced injury to the plaintiffs. ( Konar v. Munro Muffler Shops of Rochester, 28 A.D.2d 642; Durant v. Grange Silo Co., 12 A.D.2d 694.)