The IAS Court Properly found that plaintiffs complaint, alleging that defendant inscribed false and malicious statements on building exteriors and sidewalks, did not affect defendants rights of public petition and participation before public agencies and, accordingly, did not offend Civil Rights Law §§ 70-a Civ. Rights and 76-a Civ. Rights ( see, Harfenes v. Sea Gate Assn., 167 Misc.2d 647, 650-651), much less warrant application of the special summary adjudication standards set forth in CPLR 3212 (h).
The court also properly denied defendants motion for summary judgment since at least some of the language in the inscriptions was reasonably susceptible of defamatory meaning and was neither pure opinion nor nonactionable invective ( see, Parks v. Steinbrenner, 131 A.D.2d 60, 62). Plaintiff also set forth specific details and expert evidence sufficient to meet his burden of raising genuine issues of fact as to the veracity of the challenged statements and their publication by defendant ( see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562).
In addition, the court correctly found that defendant had waived his claim of lack of personal jurisdiction by interposing unrelated counterclaims ( see, Textile Technology Exch. v. Davis, 81 N.Y.2d 56; Liebling v. Yankwitt, 109 A.D.2d 780).
Finally, the court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant leave to amend his answer to add a third proposed counterclaim for abuse of process and/or malicious prosecution. The subject proposed counterclaim was factually unsupported and manifestly without merit ( see, Smith v. Bessen, 161 A.D.2d 847, 848).
We have considered defendants remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.