Tenant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Arthur F. Engoron, J.), dated June 10, 2011, which denied her motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition and granted landlord's cross motion for summary judgment on its possessory claim in a holdover summary proceeding.

Per Curiam.

Order (Arthur F. Engoron, J.), dated June 10, 2011, affirmed, with $10 costs.

We agree, essentially for reasons stated by Civil Court, that the June 9, 2010 document relied upon by the commercial tenant, headed "RE: Final Terms of Lease," constituted nothing more than an agreement to agree, and not an enforceable lease agreement between the parties (see Meyers Assoc., L.P. v Conolog Corp., 61 AD3d 547 [2009]; see also Yenom Corp. v 155 Wooster St. Inc., 23 AD3d 259 [2005]). "(T)he many substantial changes to [the June 9, 2010 proposed lease agreement accompanying the term sheet'] that were prepared by [tenant's] counsel and the parties' subsequent correspondence establish that there was never a meeting of the minds on material terms" (Yenom Corp. v 155 Wooster St. Inc., 23 AD3d at 259-260). Nor did tenant raise a factual issue sufficient to warrant a trial on the equitable doctrine of part performance. There is no evidence in the record of conduct by tenant which is unequivocally referable to the purported 10-year lease and inconsistent with any other explanation (see 745 Nostrand Retail Ltd. v 745 Jeffco Corp., 50 AD3d 768 [2008]). Given the unenforceability of the term sheet, and landlord's uncontroverted showing that the monthly tenancy was properly terminated, landlord was properly awarded summary judgment of possession.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: April 17, 2012