"Urban is a New York corporation that is planning to provide indoor soccer facilities in the New York metropolitan area. The Company organizes competitive and recreational league play for men, women, children, and co-eds on a daily basis. . . . I have a [sic] enclosed a CD which contains a power-point analysis of Urban and its programming as well as architect's plans for proposed alterations to the Premises.
"Earlier this year, Royal was approached by Urban to sublease the Premises and, on June 1, 2015, a Sublease and Guaranty were executed, copies of which are enclosed. The salient features of the Sublease are as follows: . . .
"These clauses are intended to provide a brief outline of material terms. Together with Urban's attorney, architect, and principals, we are available to discuss the Sublease in greater detail and would gladly meet with you and your colleagues to provide additional information and answer any questions.
"I look forward to hearing from you regarding next steps.
[*5]
"Thank you for your consideration." (See Doc No. 21 [the June 16 letter] [emphasis added].)
Thereafter, Urban continued to seek City approval, for instance, by continuing to meet with the Brooklyn Borough Commissioner, who Abitbol claimed "approved the change of use." (See Doc No. 36.) However, on July 21, 2015, Kanfer received a letter from Thrasher, dated July 17, 2015, responding to the June 16 letter. (See Doc No. 22 [the July 17 letter].) It states:
"As noted in prior correspondence, Section 14.02 of the Lease requires the [City's] consent to sublease. [EDC] denies [Royal's] request, because the proposed {**53 Misc 3d at 455} use under the proposed Sublease does not comply with the use provision of the Lease . . .