SKANSKA TUNNELING, INC. v. CITY OF NEW YORK

Dispute resolution procedures like those challenged herein, which vest authority to decide disputes such as claims of cost overruns in an employee or designee of the municipality, have been repeatedly held by the Court of Appeals not to be violative of any public policy concerning the fair adjudication of such disputes ( e.g., N.Y. City Charter § 311 [b] [7]), at least where, as here, the claim is raised after the fact by a contractor who has retained the benefit of the rest of the contract, and provided there is, as here, some independent review mechanism sufficient to satisfy minimum review standards such as those under CPLR articles 75 or 78 ( see, Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. New York City Tr. Auth., 82 N.Y.2d 47; Yonkers Contr. Co. v. Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp., 87 N.Y.2d 927, Maross Constr. v. Central N.Y. Regional Transp. Auth., 66 N.Y.2d 341). Furthermore, for the reasons stated by the IAS Court, the dispute herein, which involves a claim of unanticipated subsurface conditions and a consequent need for extra work, is within the scope of 9 RCNY 7-05 (a).

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.