DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
While an appellate court's authority in reviewing a nonjury trial decision is as broad as that of the trial court, due deference is given to the trial court's determination (see Mechwart v. Mechwart, 292 A.D.2d 354, lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 502; see also Matter of Ingargiola, 212 A.D.2d 789, 790; Barclays Bank of N.Y. v. Heady Elec. Co., 212 A.D.2d 749, lv denied in part 87 N.Y.2d 1008, cert denied 519 U.S. 1110; DiBruno v. Abrams, 208 A.D.2d 672, 674). The determination of a trial court should not be disturbed on appeal unless its conclusions could not have been reached based upon any fair interpretation of the evidence (see Mechwart v. Mechwart, supra; Barclays Bank of N.Y. v. Heady Elec. Co., supra; Matter of Poggemeyer, 87 A.D.2d 822, 823).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court properly admitted extrinsic evidence notwithstanding the existence of an integration clause in the parties' contract, since the contract was ambiguous as to whether the defendant had awarded a five-year maintenance contract to the plaintiff in addition to an escalator installation contract (see W.W.W. Assocs. v. Giancontieri, 77 N.Y.2d 157; Cessna Aircraft Co. v. State of New York, 231 A.D.2d 667, 668; Telemundo Group v. Alden Press, 181 A.D.2d 453, 455; Word Mgt. Corp. v. AT T Information Sys., 135 A.D.2d 317, 319). Based upon the record, the trial court properly determined that a five-year maintenance contract had been awarded to the plaintiff. Moreover, ambiguity in a contract, if any, should be construed against the drafter, which in this case was the defendant (see Custom Weld Indus. v. Chabina Co., 272 A.D.2d 364, 365; Sievert v. Morlef Holding Co., 241 A.D.2d 445, 446). The determination is supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence.
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
ALTMAN, J.P., S. MILLER, FRIEDMANN and McGINITY, JJ., concur.