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
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL’S AFFIDAVIT, WHICH WAS BASED SOLELY UPON READING THE COMPLAINT, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO PAY SUPPORT IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF A WILLFUL VIOLATION OF A SUPPORT ORDER, FAMILY COURT REVERSED.
PLAINTIFF INJURED HIS NECK ATTEMPTING TO THROW A HEAVY HOSE TO AN AREA 15 TO 20 FEET ABOVE HIM, THE INJURY WAS NOT CAUSED BY AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT).
FATHER’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT ORDER TERMINATING HIS PARENTAL RIGHTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; FATHER ATTEMPTED TO ATTEND THE HEARING, BUT WAS LATE; FATHER WAS ENTITLED TO COUNSEL BUT NONE HAD BEEN ASSIGNED; AND THERE WAS EVIDENCE HE DID NOT ABANDON THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY (NYCHA) UNILATERALLY ADJOURNED THE 5O-H HEARING IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE AND ALLEGEDLY SENT A FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF DENIED RECEIPT OF THE LETTER AND DEFENDANT IMPROPERLY SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE IN REPLY; THE AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT CONSIDERED; IN ADDITION, THE AFFIDAVIT DID NOT PROVE THE LETTER WAS MAILED TO PLAINTIFF (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS THE GUN FOUND UNDER HIS SEAT IN THE CAR; THE PEOPLE DID NOT RELY ON THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTION THAT THE OCCUPANTS OF A CAR POSSESS CONTRABAND IN THE CAR; RATHER THE PEOPLE RELIED ON THE TESTIMONY OF A POLICE OFFICER WHO SAW DEFENDANT PLACE AN OBJECT UNDER HIS SEAT; AFTER DEFENDANT GOT OUT OF THE CAR, THE BARREL OF THE GUN WAS IN PLAIN VIEW (SECOND DEPT).
THE FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE IN THE NURSING HOME ADMISSION AGREEMENT WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 CAN BE RAISED AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND SALE (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...