Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
An arbitrator's award will not be vacated, "even though the court concludes that his interpretation of the agreement misconstrues or disregards its plain meaning or misapplies substantive rules of law, unless it is violative of a strong public policy, or is totally irrational, or exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on his power" (Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], 61 N.Y.2d 299, 308; see, Matter of Neiman v. Backer, 211 A.D.2d 721). The award here was not irrational, it did not violate any public policy, and it did not exceed a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrators' power.
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the arbitrators did not exceed their authority in rendering their award. The "no damages for delay" clause, the basis for the petitioner's contention, did not limit the powers of the arbitrators, and its application, if any, to the dispute herein was properly a matter for the arbitrators (see, Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats], supra; Matter of Neiman v. Backer, supra; Pearlman v. Pearlman, 169 A.D.2d 825).
Moreover, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing proof that the arbitrators were biased against him or engaged in misconduct (see, Matter of Public Empls. Fedn. [Dasrath], 191 A.D.2d 569; Rose v. Lowrey Co., 181 A.D.2d 418; Matter of Smith Contr. v. Stahl, 162 A.D.2d 688). Thompson, J.P., Copertino, Hart and Goldstein, JJ., concur.