Opinion
February 22, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.).
The award is not a "completely irrational" interpretation of the contract provision requiring six months severance pay for discharged employees following a sale of the building ( Sweeney v Herman Mgt., 85 A.D.2d 34, 39), and any error of fact relating to whether respondents were party to the agreement is not judicially reviewable ( see, Matter of Bevona [Alma Realty], 201 A.D.2d 309; Rinaolo v. Berke, 192 A.D.2d 329, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 711). Since the date of purchase of the index number was given on the request for judicial intervention, which was included among the papers served upon respondents, the initial omission of that date on the notice of petition did not result in any prejudice to respondents, and dismissal of the action for noncompliance with CPLR 305 (a) is unwarranted ( cf., Cellular Tel. Co. v. Village of Tarrytown, 209 A.D.2d 57, 64, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 701; Matter of Miner Co. v. Lone Wolf Insulation, 219 A.D.2d 831).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.