OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs. We agree with the Appellate Division that the inclusion of certain requirements in bid specifications contained in prior public contracts does not comprise an implied representation that similar requirements will be mandated with respect to subsequent contracts. The possibility that the needs and requirements of a municipality will change so as to render useless investments made in the hope that those requirements would remain constant is a normal risk of doing business which may not be shifted to the municipality by application of an estoppel theory based on no more than is alleged in this action. Nor do we find any merit in appellant’s other arguments.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.