You are here: / / THE MOTION TO RESETTLE REQUESTED A SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE IN THE PARTIES’...
,

THE MOTION TO RESETTLE REQUESTED A SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE IN THE PARTIES’ RIGHTS WHICH CANNOT BE ADDRESSED BY RESETTLING AN ORDER; A MOTION TO RESETTLE IS MEANT TO ADDRESS CLERICAL ERRORS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion to resettle the court’s order requested a substantive change in the parties’ rights which can not be addressed by resettling an order:

… [T]he court … granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to resettle the order … and thereupon deleted the provision directing that the defendant shall receive $284,069.66 of the proceeds from the sale of the subject property before the remainder is split equally between the plaintiff and the defendant.  * * *

“Resettlement is generally intended to remedy clerical errors or clear mistakes in an order or judgment when there is no dispute about the substance of what that order or judgment should contain” … . “It may be used where the order improperly reflects the decision or fails to include necessary recitals, but [it] cannot be used to obtain a ruling not adjudicated on the original motion or to modify the decision which has been made” … . …

The court’s determination … to reform the parties’ open court stipulation upon its finding that the parties did not intend to agree to the monetary award effectuated a substantive change in the parties’ rights, rather than the correction of a clerical error. Renaud v Renaud, 2021 NY Slip Op 04624, Second Dept 8-4-21

 

You might also like
THE MAJORITY DETERMINED PLAINTIFF DID NOT TIE HIS DIMINISHED RANGE OF MOTION TO THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT, AS OPPOSED TO HIS PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS, AND THEREFORE PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE “SERIOUS INJURY;” THE DISSENT ARGUED THE NATURE OF THE ACCIDENT (DEFENDANTS’ TRUCK REAR-ENDED PLAINTIFF’S CAR AT 45 MILES PER HOUR) SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AND DEFENDANT MUST TAKE THE PLAINTIFF AS HE OR SHE FINDS HIM (THIRD DEPT). ​
Injunction Enforcing Restrictive Covenant Properly Granted Despite Substantial Construction In Violation of the Covenant
Failure to File Proof of Service Is a Procedural Irregularity Which Can Be Cured
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE (LEVEL TWO TO ONE) IN THIS CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CASE (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE AFFIDAVIT WERE NOT PRODUCED (SECOND DEPT).
THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT HAD BEEN AT LIBERTY FOR 11 YEARS WITHOUT COMMITTING A SEX OFFENSE AND THE FOUR-YEAR DIFFERENCE IN AGE BETWEEN DEFENDANT AND THE VICTIM WARRANTED A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE TO LEVEL ONE (SECOND DEPT). ​
BECAUSE THE INSTANT CONVICTION WAS FOR A CLASS A FELONY, SUPREME COURT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED TO SENTENCE DEFENDANT AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE LOAN SERVICER’S AFFIDAVIT MAY HAVE LAID A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR THE DOCUMENTS DEMONSTRATING DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE DOCUMENTS THEMSELVES WERE NOT PRODUCED, RENDERING THE AFFIDAVIT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (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

ALTHOUGH THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF THE INTERIOR OF THE CAR FOR MARIJUANA WAS... THE FACT THAT A CONTRACT DESCRIBES A PARTY AS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR IS NOT...