You are here: / / IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING, THE JUDGE HAD THE POWER TO CORRECT AN INCONSISTENCY...
,

IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING, THE JUDGE HAD THE POWER TO CORRECT AN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE JUDGMENT AND THE UNDERLYING DECISION BUT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO CHANGE THE JUDGMENT BASED UPON NEW EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in a divorce action, determined that the judge properly corrected a mistake in the judgment of divorce, but improperly made a change in the judgment based on new evidence:

… [T]he Supreme Court, sua sponte, directed the parties to appear … . … [T]he defendant and his counsel appeared, but the plaintiff failed to appear. The court expressed its concern about a letter it had received indicating that the defendant had failed to disclose a variable supplemental pension plan. The court further noted that the third decretal paragraph of the judgment did not reflect the intent expressed in the court’s underlying decision, inasmuch as the judgment failed to provide that changes in the value of the retirement assets since the commencement of the action were to be shared equally. An amended judgment was entered thereafter modifying so much of the third decretal paragraph of the original judgment as was necessary to conform the judgment to the underlying decision, and modifying the fourth decretal paragraph of the original judgment to include a reference to the previously undisclosed variable supplemental pension plan. The defendant appeals from the amended judgment.

The Supreme Court had the authority to modify the third decretal paragraph of the original judgment, given the discrepancy between the terms of that decretal paragraph and the underlying decision. “A judgment . . . must conform strictly to the court’s decision. Where there is an inconsistency between a judgment . . . and the decision upon which it is based, the decision controls” …

However, the Supreme Court was without authority, sua sponte, to modify the fourth decretal paragraph of the original judgment to add a reference to the variable supplemental pension plan, as this was a substantive modification based on new evidence that had not previously been submitted to the court. Such a modification goes beyond the court’s inherent authority to correct a “mistake, defect or irregularity” in the original judgment “not affecting a substantial right of a party” … . Mascia v Mascia, 2018 NY Slip Op 03523, Second Dept 5-16-18

​FAMILY LAW (JUDGMENTS, IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING, THE JUDGE HAD THE POWER TO CORRECT AN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE JUDGMENT AND THE UNDERLYING DECISION BUT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO CHANGE THE JUDGMENT BASED UPON NEW EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/JUDGMENTS ( IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING, THE JUDGE HAD THE POWER TO CORRECT AN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE JUDGMENT AND THE UNDERLYING DECISION BUT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO CHANGE THE JUDGMENT BASED UPON NEW EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))/JUDGES (IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING, THE JUDGE HAD THE POWER TO CORRECT AN INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE JUDGMENT AND THE UNDERLYING DECISION BUT DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO CHANGE THE JUDGMENT BASED UPON NEW EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF PAROLE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HELD IN CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO HOLD A DE NOVO PAROLE HEARING AS ORDERED BY THE ARTICLE 78 COURT, THE EXECUTIVE LAW DOES NOT CALL FOR A HEARING IN THIS CONTEXT, ONLY AN INTERVIEW (SECOND DEPT).
BUSINESS RECORDS SUBMITTED BY A PERSON WHO DOES NOT ALLEGE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE PARTY’S RECORD-KEEPING PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES CANNOT BE RELIED UPON BY THE REFEREE IN A FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE PARTIES WERE DIVORCED IN COLORADO, THEY AND THEIR CHILDREN RESIDE IN NEW YORK; THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE SHOULD NOT HAVE APPLIED COLORADO LAW IN DETERMINING FATHER’S SUPPORT OBLIGATION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS SCHOOL BUS COMPANY AND BOARD OF EDUCATION DID NOT HAVE NOTICE CHILDREN WHO INJURED INFANT PLAINTIFF ON THE SCHOOL BUS WERE CAPABLE OF DANGEROUS CONDUCT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THEY WERE OVERWHELMED BY THE DOCUMENTS THEY SIGNED AND DID NOT REALIZE THE DOCUMENTS TRANSFERRED THEIR PROPERTY TO DEFENDANT; THOSE ALLEGATIONS DID NOT SUPPORT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFFS’ FAVOR ON THEIR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT, UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND QUIET TITLE CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION FELL FROM AN INVERTED BUCKET HE WAS STANDING ON TO REACH A POWER CABLE; DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THERE WAS NO NEED FOR PLAINTIFF TO ELEVATE HIMSELF TO DO HIS JOB; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PAYMENT WAS PURSUANT TO AN ORAL CONTRACT, THEREBY TAKING THE CONTRACT OUT OF THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS (SECOND DEPT).
LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE MANNER OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DISMISSED CROSS CLAIMS BECAUSE THAT RELIEF WAS NOT REQUESTED, PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PROTECTION FROM SUIT UNDER THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW BECAUSE IT DID NOT MAINTAIN A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION POLICY (SECOND DEPT).

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

AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AND EXPERT WITNESS FEES IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION... FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, PLAINTIFF BANK TOOK PRELIMINARY...