The parties' disputes regarding Urban's understanding of EDC's position, particularly with respect to the June 12 letter, also are of no moment. There is no question that, by the middle of July 2015, Urban knew that EDC had rejected the sublease. It, however, did not give up at that point, nor did it demand that the sublease be terminated. Only in September 2015, after its lobbying efforts appeared to have failed, did Urban seek to recoup the security deposit. The contract, however, provides no basis for recoupment under these circumstances. It makes no distinction between the City rejecting the sublease in July, or September, or November. Rather, all the sublease, read with the rider as it must be, provides is that Royal has the unilateral right to terminate and keep the security deposit if the City does not provide consent by November 11, 2015. The City did not. Urban's position that it had a right to terminate has no basis in the contract. If the parties intended for Urban to have{**53 Misc 3d at 461} such a right, they would have said so in the sublease. The court must give effect to the parties' clear agreement that termination was an option unilaterally held by Royal.[FN9]