Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On its cross motion, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendant made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). The defendant established that the: granting of an easement was an essential term of the alleged agreement. Since the parties never agreed to the nature and extent of the easement, the alleged agreement was unenforceable ( see Joseph Martin, Jr., Delicatessen v Schumacher, 52 NY2d 105, 109; Red Hook Marble, Inc. v Herskowitz Rosenberg, 15 AD3d 560, 561; Danton Constr. Corp. v Bonner, 173 AD2d 759, 759-760). Since, in response, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, the court correctly granted the defendant's cross motion ( see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra at 324).
The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit.