2470 Cadillac Resources, Inc. v. DHL Express (USA), Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

2470 Cadillac Resources, Inc. v. DHL Express (USA), Inc.

92 A.D.3d 618, 938 N.Y.2d 886

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 28, 2012·Published

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] 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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] 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.

2470 Cadillac Resources, Inc. v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., 92 A.D.3d 618, 938 N.Y.2d 886 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

92 A.D.3d 618 (2470 Cadillac Resources, Inc. v. DHL Express (USA), Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related