Nor was Petitioner's foundational witness required to testify as to his personal knowledge of the creation of the nonrenewal notice, or otherwise authenticate the signature on the notice, signed by Petitioner's authorized agent, to admit it into evidence. A notice of nonrenewal, like a contract, is a type of written verbal act that must be authenticated prior to its admission into evidence (see LPP Mtge. Inc. v Cruz, 81 Misc 3d 1242 [Civ Ct, Queens Co 2024]). However, unlike a contract, which is only effective upon a meeting of the minds, normally demonstrated by confirming the signature of the party being bound, a notice of nonrenewal is a unilateral act that typically need only to emanate from the party in interest to constitute an authentic, written manifestation of that party's legal intent (see Bannerman v Hughes, 188 NYS 410 [App Term, 1st Dept 1921]). Barring a specific lease provision, there is no requirement that such a notice be issued or signed by a particular employee (see Port Royal Owners Corp. v Navy Beach Rest. Group, LLC, 56 Misc 3d 56 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2017], citing QPII-143-45 Sanford Ave., LLC v Spinner, 34 Misc 3d 14 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011], affd 108 AD3d 558 [2d 2013]). In fact, as with other predicate notices, such as 14-day rent demands, there appears to be no legal requirement that a nonrenewal or termination notice be signed at all, absent a specific lease requirement, rendering the common practice of signing such notices harmless surplusage (see RPL §§ 226-c and 232-a, RPAPL 711(1) and (2); 54-56 Mgt. Corp v MTA Fine Arts Co., Inc., 76 Misc 3d 136 [App Term, 1st Dept 2022]). To constitute a valid act, a nonrenewal or termination notice need only be issued by or on behalf of the relevant party in interest, contain the requisite language required by law to accomplish the act of nonrenewal or termination, and be timely and properly served on the opposing party (see Port Royal Owners Corp. v Navy Beach Rest. Group, LLC, 56 Misc 3d 56; Bannerman v Hughes, 188 NYS 410 [App Term, 1st Dept 1921]).