Opinion
Decided July 2, 1987
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Andrew Tyler, J.
Peter L. Zimroth, Corporation Counsel (John Hogrogian of counsel), for appellant.
Tony Berman for respondent.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
The City of New York (City) urges that article 32 of its standard-form construction contract contains an arbitration or alternative dispute resolution clause making the decisions of the appropriate Commissioner final and binding, and that the Supreme Court's charge to the jury was erroneous requiring a new trial. This court has recently decided two cases against the City on the precise contractual provision in issue here (Naclerio Contr. Co. v City of New York, 69 N.Y.2d 794, affg 116 A.D.2d 463; Lovisa Constr. Co. v City of New York, 69 N.Y.2d 801, affg 116 A.D.2d 1047).
The jury charge on the whole was substantially correct and the City was not prejudiced by any minor error in the court's instructions (see, CPLR 2002; Danielson v Morse Dry Dock Repair Co., 235 N.Y. 439, 444, cert denied 262 U.S. 756; Corrigan v Bobbs-Merrill Co., 228 N.Y. 58, 72-73).
Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.