DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as cross-appealed from, on the law, the cross motion is granted, and the fifth counterclaim is dismissed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the action against her is not "an action involving public petition and participation", otherwise known as a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) suit, brought under Civil Rights Law § 70-a Civ. Rights. The causes of action asserted against the defendant are not materially related to any efforts by her to report on, comment on, challenge, or oppose an application by the plaintiff for a permit, license, or other authorization from a public body (see, Civil Rights Law §§ 70-a Civ. Rights, 76-a Civ. Rights[1][a]; see, e.g., Gill Farms v. Darrow, 256 A.D.2d 995; Ansonia Assocs. Ltd. Partnership v. AnsoniaTenants' Coalition, 253 A.D.2d 706; Bell v. Little, 250 A.D.2d 485; OSJ, Inc. v. Work, 180 Misc.2d 804;Harfenes v. Sea Gate Assn., 167 Misc.2d 647, 652). Accordingly, the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the fifth counterclaim, asserted pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 70-a Civ. Rights, should have been granted.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.