The conditions alleged by defendant are not what caused it to vacate the premises ( Zevnik, Horton, Guibord, McGovern, Palmer Fognani v. Sheraton Holding Corp., 304 AD2d 455; Cut-Outs, Inc. v. Man Yun Real Estate Corp., 286 AD2d 258, 262-263, lv denied 100 NY2d 507; see Barash v. Pennsylvania Term. Real Estate Corp., 26 NY2d 77, 83). Further, defendant failed to abandon the premises with reasonable promptness ( Incredible Christmas Store-N.Y. v. RCPI Trust, 307 AD2d 816; cf. Zurel U.S.A. v. Magnum Realty Corp., 279 AD2d 520).
Defendant's challenge to the dismissal of its counterclaim is unpreserved for appeal and, in any event, is without merit.