The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document numbers (Motion 002) 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, and 47 were read on this motion for SUMMARY JUDGMENT. DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Upon the foregoing documents, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted for the reasons set forth in defendants’ moving papers (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 33, 38, 42) and the exhibits attached thereto, in which the court concurs as set forth below. Background In this commercial landlord-tenant action, defendant Thor 38 Park Row LLC (“landlord”) leased to plaintiff Tour Central Park Inc. (“tenant”) a commercial space at 38 Park Row, New York, New York (the “premises”), in which tenant operated a bicycle rental business. The lease ran through June 30, 2020 (First Amendment to Lease, NYSCEF Doc. No. 41 at 1), but allowed for landlord to terminate the lease before the term expired in the event of significant alterations to the building or ownership structure thereof, or “for any other reason in Landlord’s sole business judgment” (Lease, NYSCEF Doc. No. 39, §21.13). On June 20, 2017, landlord sent tenant a termination notice pursuant to Section 21.13 of the lease, which was ultimately withdrawn upon the parties entering into the First Amendment to Lease (NYSCEF Doc. No. 41 at 1). Pursuant to the First Amendment to Lease, the term of the lease was to expire on December 31, 2019 (id., §2). Landlord asserts that tenant remained in the space for several months without paying rent after the lease expired (Stanchfield aff., NYSCEF Doc. No. 38, 9). Tenant — while not meaningfully disputing that it received a termination notice, entered into the First Amendment to Lease, and remained in the premises for at least some time after the lease expired — tells a somewhat different story. Tenant alleges that the termination notice was an attempt to force tenant out so that landlord could rent to a competing bicycle rental company, and that landlord used the termination notice as leverage to get tenant to agree to increased rent and then rented to tenant’s competitor after entering the First Amendment to Lease (Saryyev aff., NYSCEF Doc. No. 46,
13-25). Further, after informing landlord following expiration of the lease that tenant would be vacating the premises, landlord then fraudulently induced tenant to remain in the space through March 2020 before refusing to return tenant’s security deposit (id.,
