Opinion
May 5, 1997
Appeal from Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Newmark, J.),
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs. The determination of a court after a nonjury trial will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clear that its conclusions could not have been reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence ( see, Lolik v. Big v. Supermarkets, 86 N.Y.2d 744; Northville Indus. Corp. v. Huebner, 233 A.D.2d 488; Bucci v. Bucci, 231 A.D.2d 665; KBF Pollution Mgt. v. Interstate Litho Corp., 213 A.D.2d 452). The trial court's determination that there was a breach by the plaintiff of the license agreement and the interim software programming agreement dated June 17, 1985, is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence.
We agree with the Supreme Court's determination that the parties' use of the word "estimate" in a letter dated February 6, 1985, evinced an intent that the stated programming costs were simply an estimate and not a binding contract price.
The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit.
Rosenblatt, J.P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Friedmann, JJ., concur.