2470 Cadillac Resources, Inc. v. DHL Express (USA), Inc.
This text of 92 A.D.3d 618 (2470 Cadillac Resources, Inc. v. DHL Express (USA), Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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 [619]*619third-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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
92 A.D.3d 618, 938 N.Y.2d 886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/2470-cadillac-resources-inc-v-dhl-express-usa-inc-nyappdiv-2012.