| Flexible Bus. Sys., Inc. v Dag Media, Inc. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02788 [49 AD3d 808] |
| March 25, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Flexible Business Systems, Inc., Respondent, v Dag Media,Inc., et al., Appellants. |
—[*1] Lazer, Aptheker, Rosella & Yedid, P.C., Melville, N.Y. (Todd M. Gardella, ZacharyMurdock, and Amy E. Bedell of counsel), for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal froma judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kerins, J.), entered January 24, 2006, which,after a nonjury trial, and upon a decision of the same court dated January 3, 2006, is in favor ofthe plaintiff and against them in the total sum of $54,988.94.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, this Court's power is as broad as thatof the trial court, and it may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking intoaccount that in a close case the trial judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses(see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492,499 [1983]; Narendra v Thieriot, 41AD3d 442, 443 [2007]).
Where, as here, the parties set down their agreement in a clear, complete document, theirwriting should be enforced according to its terms (see Bailey v Fish & Neave, 8 NY3d 523, 528 [2007]; South Rd. Assoc., LLC v International Bus.Machs. Corp., 4 NY3d 272, 277 [2005]; W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri, 77NY2d 157, 162 [1990]). The Supreme Court correctly determined that the defendants, rather thanthe plaintiff, breached the parties' written agreement. The plaintiff was obligated under thecontract, inter alia, to convert two specific software files to a new accounting program. However,the contract expressly warranted that any work performed thereunder was subject to thelimitations [*2]of the new program. The plaintiff established by apreponderance of the credible evidence that it converted the two files to the extent the data inthose files could be accommodated by the new program. Accordingly, the Supreme Court did noterr in finding in favor of the plaintiff on its cause of action alleging breach of contract.
The plaintiff also established, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that thedefendants were liable to it for outstanding amounts due on unpaid invoices under a theory ofaccount stated.
The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit. Fisher, J.P., Dillon, McCarthy andBelen, JJ., concur.