Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The lease which is the subject of this action is ambiguous in several respects and subject to different interpretations. Where the intent of the parties depends upon a choice between reasonable inferences to be drawn from extrinsic evidence, interpretation of the contract must be determined by the trier of fact (see, Hartford Acc. Indem. Co. v. Wesolowski, 33 N.Y.2d 169, 172; O'Neil Supply Co. v. Petroleum Heat Power Co., 280 N.Y. 50, 55-56). In the instant matter, in addition to the issue of waiver, the supporting and opposing papers do not unequivocally clarify the parties' intent as to the tenant's right to terminate the lease. In such a situation, summary judgment is inappropriate (see, Mallad Constr. Corp. v. County Fed. Sav. Loan Assn., 32 N.Y.2d 285, 291; Lachs v. Fidelity Cas. Co., 306 N.Y. 357, 364, rearg denied 306 N.Y. 941). Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Weinstein and Kooper, JJ., concur.