Tenants appeal from a final judgment of the Civil Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered January 24, 2005, after a nonjury trial, which awarded possession to landlord in a commercial holdover proceeding.

PER CURIAM:

Final Judgment (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered January 24, 2005, affirmed, with $25 costs.

The trial court properly concluded that the purported renewal clause, contingent upon the parties' "execut[ion] of a new lease with a new rental amount no less than 30 days prior to the end of the term of this lease", was missing a material term and, therefore, was unenforceable (see Seiden v. Francis, 184 AD2d 904 [1992]). The clause provided no objective basis for determining the rental amount the parties intended tenants to pay upon renewal and thus constituted a "mere agreement to agree" (compare Luna v. Lower E. Side Mut. Hous. Assn., 293 AD2d 307 [2002]). Contrary to tenants' contention, the "unamplified language" of the provision did not convey a commitment to be bound by the fair market rental value of the commercial premises (see Martin Delicatessen v. Schumacher, 52 NY2d 105 [1981]), nor did it invite recourse to an objective extrinsic event, condition or standard to determine the rental amount (see 166 Mamaroneck Avenue Corp. v 151 E. Post Road Corp., 78 NY2d 88 [1991]).

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Decision Date: May 4, 2006