2470 Cadillac Resources, Inc., et al., Appellants, v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendant

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 AD3d 697, 698 [2011]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Catterson, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.