Berkman, Henoch, Peterson & Peddy, P. C., Garden City (
Robert A. Caruba of counsel), for plaintiff.
Mitchell & Incantalupo, Forest Hills, for defendants.
OPINION OF THE COURT
BRUCE D. ALPERT, J. This motion by plaintiff and counterclaim defendant for leave to amend the former's response to counterclaims and the latter's widely disparate claims between civil litigants may be resolved in one action on a global basis. The adoption of article 7 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, which, as hereinabove noted, provides for the expeditious resolution of certain landlord/tenant disputes, is a manifestation of public policy of a different character. The initiation of a summary proceeding thereunder by a commercial landlord, armed with a negotiated counterclaim waiver provision, results in conflict in those instances where the tenant counterclaims. In that context, the waiver provisions have been enforced and the public policy manifested by the adoption of article 7 of the RPAPL has taken precedence over issues of judicial economy. (See, Titleserv, Inc. v Zenobio, supra ; Mid-Island Shopping Plaza Co. v Cutler, 112 AD2d 405, 408; Orlowsky v East House Enters., 32 Misc 2d 664; Linker v Herard, 13 Misc 2d 445; Amazon Mgt. Corp. v Paff, 166 Misc 438; see also, Steinberg v Carreras, 74 Misc 2d 32, 37, revd in part 77 Misc 2d 774.) Here, the plaintiff, having elected to forgo the mechanism established under article 7 of the RPAPL, lost not only the opportunity to obtain an expedited determination, but the insulation it would have been afforded from the reach of both the defendants' counterclaims and the countervailing public policy designed to promote judicial economy and limit the potential for disparate results. Accordingly, the instant application is denied in its entirety.