You are here: / / Motion to Resettle Not Proper Vehicle for Substantive Change to Order

Motion to Resettle Not Proper Vehicle for Substantive Change to Order

In determining a motion to resettle pursuant to CPLR 5019(a) was not the proper vehicle for seeking the reinstatement of a cause of action the court had dismissed, the Second Department explained:

“CPLR 5019(a) provides a court with the discretion to correct a technical defect or a ministerial error, and may not be employed as a vehicle to alter the substantive rights of a party” … . Where a movant seeks to change an order or judgment in a substantive manner, rather than correcting a mere clerical error, CPLR 5019(a) is not the proper procedural mechanism to be employed, and relief should be sought through a direct appeal or by motion to vacate pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) … . Chmelovsky v Country Club Homes, Inc, 2013 NY Slip Op 07927, 2nd Dept 11-27-13

 

You might also like
THE RECORD WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CONCLUDE APPELLANT IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING VALIDLY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL; NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO REJECT A LATE ANSWER WITHIN 15 DAYS WAIVES LATE SERVICE AND THE DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT).
​ THE DISCHARGED LAW FIRM HANDLED THE PERSONAL INJURY CASE FOR TWO YEARS; ALTHOUGH THE FIRM DID NOT SUBMIT ANY TIME RECORDS, SUPREME COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO AWARD THE DISCHARGED FIRM A PORTION OF THE CONTINGENCY FEE AFTER THE CASE SETTLED (SECOND DEPT).
THE DETECTIVE WHO CONDUCTED THE LINEUP WAS AWARE DEFENDANT WAS REPRESENTED BY AN ATTORNEY BUT DID NOT NOTIFY THE ATTORNEY OF THE LINEUP; THE IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INTEREST CALCULATION WAS DONE USING THE METHOD REQUIRED BY THE NOTE AND THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS WERE NOT SUBMITTED; THE REFEREE’S REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, REVOKED THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT IN THIS FORECLOSURE CASE BECAUSE PLAINTIFF DID NOT SEEK THAT RELIEF (SECOND DEPT).
Liability Criteria Re: Tenant for Slip and Fall on Abutting Public Sidewalk Explained
CAR CRASHING THROUGH SUPERMARKET DOORS WAS AN UNFORESEEABLE INTERVENING ACT; SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED TO SUPERMARKET AND LANDOWNER.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Arbitrator Exceeded His Authority by Modifying Punishment Imposed by Town Upon... Supreme Court Should Not Have Treated Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss as Motion...