Plaintiff failed to file a timely notice of claim, which is expressly made a prerequisite to recovery under the parties' contract and which is subject to strict construction as a matter of public policy (see A.H.A. Gen. Constr. v. New York City Hous. Auth., 92 N.Y.2d 20, 33-34). Plaintiff's previous letter notice is not designated as a notice of claim and, in any event, fails to meet the requirements of the contract's notice provision. Even if the notice defect were to be ignored, plaintiff waived any right to sue for delay damages under the contract. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate intentional wrongdoing, gross negligence or willful misconduct (North Star Contr. Corp. v. City of New York, 203 A.D.2d 214, 215), and its claim is tantamount to an allegation of poor contract administration that is subject to the bar of the exculpatory provision (see T.J.D. Constr. Co. v. City of New York, 295 A.D.2d 180; S.N. Tannor, Inc. v. A.F.C. Enters., 276 A.D.2d 363, 364).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.