"We expect to meet with him in the first week of September. We believe that if we get his support, the EDC will follow suit and reverse its decision." (See Doc No. 39.)
The parties had a follow-up meeting on September 2, 2015, at which Urban remained optimistic. Shortly thereafter, Urban informed Royal of positive feedback received from Menchaca.{**53 Misc 3d at 456}
Then, on September 8, 2015, Abitbol informed Kanfer that he considered the sublease to be null and void because EDC had not approved it. On September 17, 2015, Abitbol sent the following email to Kanfer:
"Further to our conversation, I confirm that the public affairs firm retained by [Urban] has received unequivocal indication from EDC that EDC will not reverse or amend the terms of [the July 17 letter] denying the request for Sublease filed by [Royal]. [Urban] has exhausted the already limited actions that were available to it, if any, given that, as previously indicated by EDC, EDC will only deal directly with [Royal]. The Sublease, being subject to obtaining the consent of [the City] (through EDC), is thus null and void and [Urban] is requesting the return of its security deposit and the original of the guaranty provided by Mr. François Chateau." (See Doc No. 23.)
Kanfer's colleague, Franklyn Snitow (Royal's counsel in this action), responded by email on [*6]September 18, 2015, disputing Urban's right to recover its security deposit. (See Doc No. 24.) Snitow stated, among other things: