DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the defendants' contentions, the communications tower erected by the plaintiff on the leased premises was a trade fixture, as it was annexed to the leased premises by the plaintiff, and intended to be used solely for the plaintiff's business and trade (see J.K.S.P. Rest. v. County of Nassau, 127 A.D.2d 121, 125). As such, the tower remained the plaintiff's personal property and was removable by the plaintiff upon termination of the lease, absent any evidence that such removal would cause injury to the land (see J.K.S.P. Rest. v. County of Nassau, supra at 125-126). Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly refused to consider the surrounding circumstances offered by the defendants in support of their arguments to the contrary, as the relevant terms of the lease were clear and unambiguous on their face (see W.W.W. Assocs. v. Giancontieri, 77 N.Y.2d 157, 163; Intercontinental Planning v. Daystrom, Inc., 24 N.Y.2d 372, 379; Sumitomo Bank of N.Y. Trust Co. v. Town of N. Hempstead, 278 A.D.2d 402, 403).
FEUERSTEIN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.