of the defendant following a bench trial. We affirm. The plaintiff sued the defendant for civil theft. See § 772.104, Fla. Stat (1995). The trial court ruled that the plaintiffs civil theft claim failed, as he failed to prove with clear and convincing evidence that the defendant acted with criminal intent. At the end of the proceedings, the plaintiff made an ore tenus motion to amend the pleadings to add a claim for fraudulent inducement in conformity with the evidence. The trial court denied the motion and entered final judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff appeals. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion to amend to conform with the evidence. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(b); Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Nunez, 646 So.2d 831 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (<HOLDING>), review denied 658 So.2d 992; see also
holding that the admission or exclusion of evidence is within discretion of the trial court and that such determinations will not be disturbed on appeal absent clear abuse of discretion holding that rulings on admissibility of evidence are within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of that discretion holding that the decision whether to grant a continuance lies in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion holding that a sentence imposed within statutory limits will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court holding that a trial courts decision to permit or to refuse amendments to pleading to conform to the evidence during trial will ordinarily not be disturbed on appeal in absence of abuse of discretion