"This is a transparent attempt to recast the parties' obligations under Rider in order to provide Urban with an exit strategy. Your current position is also belied by [the July 17 letter]. That letter is the only communication we received from EDC concerning the Sublease[FN7] and does not state or infer that EDC either refused to deal with Urban or would only deal with Royal. If that was the case . . . [Urban] would not have vigorously pursued its application for consent over the last sixty days, would not have retained lobbying firms, would not have pursued its application with the Buildings Department, would not have secured the support of Councilman Menchaca and would not have requested a time extension from Royal." (See id. [emphasis added].)
Abitbol responded by email on September 22, 2015, in which he began by indicating that he had never received a copy of the June 12 letter, took the position that EDC had denied approval in that letter, and that Urban would never have continued to pursue the City's consent had it known about the June 12 letter. (See Doc No. 25.) Kanfer immediately responded to that email by sending Abitbol a copy of the June 12 letter. (See Doc{**53 Misc 3d at 457} No. 26.) On October 7, 2015, Snitow emailed Abitbol to tell him that a further exchange of emails would be pointless given their disputes over the meaning of the sublease and the rider. (See Doc No. 27.)