PER CURIAM

Tenant appealed from a judgment awarding landlord possession in a holdover summary action. The parties' lease had a series of escalating base rents, and a modification agreement was executed extending it to 2019, but did not set forth any specific rental rate or method to determine same from Dec. 2014 through Nov. 2019. The court noted the absence from the agreement of the amount of rent to be paid or method to determine same for the five year period rendered it too indefinite to be enforced for the post Nov. 2014 period. The panel stated given the indefiniteness and uncertainty of the underlying agreement, the trial court properly considered parol evidence to determine the parties' intent. It stated the trial court's finding the agreement was intended to be for a five, not 10 year period, and expired Nov. 30, 2014, comported with a fair interpretation of the evidence, especially in light of the parties' prior conduct. Given the parties' practice of setting forth specific details, it reasonably credited landlord's managing member the 2019 expiration date was a typographical error, and tenant's claim the rent was intended through 2019 was properly rejected as unsupported. Thus, the judgment was affirmed.

PER CURIAM