3653-3653A. BHUPINDER GREWAL, DOING BUSINESS AS UNITEDSHIPPING SOLUTIONS plf-ap, SHERO SHIPPING, LLC DOING BUSINESS AS UNITED SHIPPING SOLUTIONS Plaintiffs-Intervenors-ap — v. DHL EXPRESS (USA), INC., def-res — K & L GATES LLP, NEW YORK (JOHN C. BLESSINGTON OF THE BAR OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS AND STATE OF MAINE, ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE, OF COUNSEL), FOR BHUPINDER GREWAL, SHIPPING SOLUTIONS, BRYAN SMETANKA, BUCKLEY SHIPPING AND FRIEGHT, INC., CLEVER GOODS, LLC, COLD SPRING INVESTMENTS, LLC, COLD SPRING INVESTMENTS, NO. 1, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, COLD SPRING INVESTMENTS, NO. 2, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, DIAMOND MOUNTAIN HOLDINGS, LLC, ELITE LOGISTICS, INC., EXTREME GROUP, INC., FIRST COAST SHIPPING, LLC, GLOBAL EXPRESS SHIPPING, INC, HANNAH ENTERPRISES, INC, MARIPOSA EXPRESS, INC, METRO MAR VENTURES, LLC, MICHAEL JONES, LLC, MICHAELSON VENTURES INC, M.K. LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT, LLC, OLS LLC, OUTFORCE, LLC, PREMIER SOLUTIONS LOGISTICS, LLC, SHERMANATOR INC., STIRLING LLC, THE DOUBLE A&O GROUP, INC., TIMOTHY SALAVEJUS, 4O Enterprises, United Shipping Solutions, LLC, USS Boston Inc., USS Charlotte Inc., USS Essex Inc., USS Highland Park, Inc., USS Holdings, LLC, USS O’Brien, Inc., USS Raleigh Inc., USS SanDiego, CA, Inc., and Wiley & Company, LLC, ap — DAVIDOFF HUTCHER & CITRON LLP, NEW YORK (ROBERT J. LEWIS OF COUNSEL), FOR SHERO SHIPPING, LLC, KUK LOGISTICS, MNS, LLC, KuK Logistics MNO, LLC, and KuK Logistics SS, LLC, ap — Dechert LLP, Los Angeles, CA (Christopher S. Ruhland of the bar of the State of California, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for res — Amended judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered February 3, 2016, which brings up for review orders, same court and Justice, entered February 15, 2012, which denied plaintiffs’ motion and plaintiffs-intervenors’ cross motion for summary judgment, and entered September 30, 2015, which denied plaintiffs’ and plaintiffs intervenors’ motions pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the verdict and direct judgment as a matter of law or order a new trial, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from judgment, entered February 1, 2016, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by the appeal from the amended judgment.
Defendant, a global shipping company that sells its services to “resellers” that negotiate shipping rates with it and then resell the shipping services to their customers at higher rates, entered into a Reseller Agreement with USS Logistics (Logistics) in January 2003. Plaintiffs and plaintiffs intervenors (collectively plaintiffs) are franchisees of an affiliate of Logistics. They commenced this action against defendant alleging, inter alia, breach of contract after defendant discontinued domestic shipping service prior to the expiration of its reseller agreement with Logistics.
