adjudication. Safeco also maintains that it did properly object to the dismissal of the complaint even though it was not required to do so. We find both of Safeco’s contentions to be without merit. This court has previously held that a defendant must object to a plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal, pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-41, to preserve a counterclaim capable of independent adjudication, HardwickMorrison Co. v. Mayland, 206 Ga. App. 426 (425 SE2d 416) (1992), and to provide plaintiff with notice that it intends to pursue its counterclaim. Thus, in Hardwick, this court held that defendant’s failure to object to a voluntary dismissal of the main action containing a counterclaim resulted in dismissal of the counterclaim. See also Moore v. McNair, 145 Ga. App. 888 (245 SE2d 25) (1978) (<HOLDING>). However, in addition to arguing that it was
holding issue first addressed in appellants reply brief was not waived because it was in response to argument first presented in appellees brief holding that upon appellees failure to object to appellants voluntary dismissal the action including appellees counterclaim was dismissed holding that a reviewing court must address an appellees reply as to preservation of error and an alternative argument in an appellees reply holding that issue first raised in appellees brief and then answered in appellants reply brief was properly raised for review holding that the appellees argument was waived because they had expressly abandoned the argument before the administrative agency