After the Superintendent denied indemnification because the bonds were not based upon risks located in New York, Supreme Court annulled the determination and remitted for plenary reconsideration (Matter of Royal Banks&sTrust Co. v. Superintendent of Ins., 148 Misc.2d 863, 562 N.Y.S.2d 347, affd. for reasons stated below sub nom. Matter of Union Indem. Ins. Co., 179 A.D.2d 374, 578 N.Y.S.2d 409, also affd. for reasons stated at Sup.Ct., except insofar as discussion of superseding legislation and the reasons for its enactment 80 N.Y.2d 983, 592 N.Y.S.2d 664, 607 N.E.2d 811).         Justice Gammerman, who has presided over all phases of this matter for more than a decade, then granted Royal's motion for partial summary judgment and directed payment of interest and attorney's fees on the claims.

We affirm. [1, 2] "[T]ermination of the primary lease terminates a sub-lease" (64BVenturev. AmericanRealtyCo., 179 A.D.2d 374, 376, 579 N.Y.S.2d 1 [1st Dept. 1992], lvdenied 79 N.Y.2d 757, 583 N.Y.S.2d 193, 592 N.E.2d 801 [1992]; seeWorldofFoodv. NewYorkWorld’sFair1964-1965Corp., 22 A.D.2d 278, 280, 254 N.Y.S.2d 658 [1st Dept. 1964]). Further, "termination of the prime lease will ordinarily prevent the exercise of a renewal option in a sublease" (Cahillv. COHITowersAssoc., 160 A.D.2d 325, 325, 553 N.Y.S.2d 408 [1st Dept. 1990]; seeLeibowitzv. Bickford’sLunchSys., 241 N.Y. 489, 496-497, 150 N.E. 525 [1926]; seegenerallyMinister, Elders&DeaconsofRef. Prot. DutchChurchofCityofN.Y. v. 198Broadway, 59 N.Y.2d 170, 173, 464 N.Y.S.2d 406, 451 N.E.2d 164 [1983]; TigerCraneMartialArtsv. FranchiseStoresRealtyCorp., 235 A.D.2d 994, 995, 652 N.Y.S.2d 674 [3d Dept. 1997]).

The motion court providently exercised its discretion in declining to drop subtenant Soho Sanctuary LLC as a party defendant (see CPLR 1003 ). Although Soho was not a necessary party, because it was not in contractual privity with the owner (see Asherson v. Schuman, 106 A.D.2d 340, 483 N.Y.S.2d 253 [1st Dept.1984] ), it was a proper party, because termination of the lease would terminate its subtenancy (see 64 B Venture v. American Realty Co., 179 A.D.2d 374, 376, 579 N.Y.S.2d 1 [1st Dept.1992], lv. denied 79 N.Y.2d 757, 583 N.Y.S.2d 193, 592 N.E.2d 801 [1992] ; World of Food v. New York World's Fair 1964–1965 Corp., 22 A.D.2d 278, 280, 254 N.Y.S.2d 658 [1st Dept1964] ; 380 Yorktown Food Corp. v. 380 Downing Dr., LLC, 107 A.D.3d 786, 788, 967 N.Y.S.2d 125 [2d Dept.2013], lv. denied 22 N.Y.3d 860, 2014 WL 148688 [2014] ). In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to address the parties' other arguments for affirmative relief.