2470 Cadillac Res., Inc.
v.
DHL Express (Usa), Inc.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.Feb 28, 2012
92 A.D.3d 618 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)
92 A.D.3d 618A.D.3d938 N.Y.S.2d 8862012 N.Y. Slip Op. 1511

2012-02-28

2470 CADILLAC RESOURCES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. DHL EXPRESS (USA), INC., Defendant–Respondent,Deutsche Post AG, Defendant.

Einbinder & Dunn, LLP, New York (Michael Einbinder of counsel), and Phillips Nizer, LLP, New York (Jeremy Richardson of counsel), for appellants. Dechert LLP, New York (Edwin V. Woodsome of counsel), for respondent.


Einbinder & Dunn, LLP, New York (Michael Einbinder of counsel), and Phillips Nizer, LLP, New York (Jeremy Richardson of counsel), for appellants. Dechert LLP, New York (Edwin V. Woodsome of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered December 21, 2010, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiffs' motion to renew defendant-respondent's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' first cause of action, for breach of contract, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

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 third-party beneficiaries of the reseller agreement ( see 2470 Cadillac Resources, Inc. v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., 84 A.D.3d 697, 698, 923 N.Y.S.2d 530 [2011] ).

MAZZARELLI, J.P., ANDRIAS, CATTERSON, ABDUS–SALAAM, MANZANET–DANIELS, JJ., concur.