I believe a brief reply may be appropriate to the column of Messrs. Macht, Cohen and Gardener addressing what they regard as the unavailability of the Yellowstone injunction "for the asking" to commercial tenants. The assertion that "commercial tenants facing immediate lease termination are still denied access to the courts" is both inaccurate and an unseemly appeal to age old aphorisms about heartless landlords.

First, let's be clear that Real Property Law 235-h speaks to a "declaratory judgment," not an injunction, Yellowstone or otherwise. The authors may say that I am splitting hairs, but this is simply statutory interpretation, something that is part of our job as lawyers.

Second, and more important, I do not agree that commercial tenants are denied access to the courts. Tenants are free to contest an alleged breach. To suggest that a tenant could not defend on the grounds of payment, for example, would find landlord's counsel out of court on his/her ear. "Denied access to the courts?" Absent issues such as res judicata and collateral estoppel, I am skeptical.

Finally, it is undeniable that once you're in Supreme Court, the very nature of a "summary" proceeding is eviscerated. The nature of a system where judges are overwhelmed with endless dockets, inadequate resources and, dare I say, lawyers who delight in delay, makes some of us prefer the cacophony of nails on a blackboard.

I respectfully suggest to my colleagues that landlord-tenant disputes belong in the Civil and District Courts where the legislature intended them and where a more timely and efficient, albeit imperfect, adjudication awaits both parties.

Alan B. Katz works with Howard Katz Realty & Construction Co. in Farmingdale.