Majority
p. 6182470 Cadillac Resources, Inc., et al., Appellants, v DHL Express (USA), Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendant. [938 NYS2d 886]
The IAS Court properly determined that defendant’s counterclaims are not new evidence that would alter its prior determination (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]). Indeed, the counterclaims restate allegations that were before the court on the prior motion and do not constitute an admission, or evidence, that plaintiffs are
p. 619
third-party beneficiaries of the reseller agreement (see 2470 Cadillac Resources, Inc. v DHL Express [USA], Inc., 84 AD3d 697 , 698 [2011]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Catterson, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
Cases cited
- 2470 Cadillac Resources, Inc. v. DHL Express (USA), Inc. 84 AD3d 697 at 698 p. 619