In Inland Diversified Real Estate Serv., LLC v. Keiko NY, Inc. (51 Misc 3d 139[A], 36 NYS3d 407, 2016 NY Slip Op 50613[U], 2016 WL 1590763 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2016]), the petitioner sought to evict a commercial tenant to recover the following: "Inland Diversified Real Estate Service, LLC (petitioner) commenced this nonpayment proceeding on behalf of Inland Diversified White Plains City Center, LLC (landlord) against landlord's commercial tenant seeking to recover possession and items described as 'minimum rent' and 'additional rent' (which consisted of electricity, gas, quadlogic meter and common area maintenance charges)." In Inland, respondent obtained new counsel and moved to vacate the final judgment and stipulation of settlement. Respondent claimed that the stipulation was entered into by the attorney without settlement authority and by mistake because respondent would never have agreed to vacate the leasehold. Respondent claimed it wanted the opportunity to pay any legitimate amounts but refused to pay the utility charges claimed to be exorbitant and for which bills were not provided. Respondent argued that the utility charges were not additional rent and not recoverable in a summary proceeding. The petitioner in Inland submitted opposition wherein it claimed that the utility charges were additional rent and tenant concurred that the utility charges were owed after reviewing the payment history. etitioner also stated that respondent had consented to a money judgment with the warrant stayed until January 8, 2014 because it couldn't afford to pay the rent and additional rent. The Appellate Term found that the petitioner had to prove that it actually paid for the electric, quadlogic meter and gas to be indemnified from respondent as additional rent. Petitioner failed to show that utility bills were submitted to respondent demonstrating payment which would bring these items into the clarification as additional rent. Based upon this scenario, petitioner was barred from recovering these utility items in a summary proceeding because the Civil Court could only award a money judgment for rent or additional rent. The Appellate Term also dismissed the summary proceeding because of the large discrepancy between the amount of rent or additional rent actually owed and the amounts of rent or additional asserted by petitioner as actually owed.