From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Parkinson v. Bono

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 30, 2002
300 A.D.2d 640 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-08224

Argued November 26, 2002.

December 30, 2002.

Appeal by the defendant, on a motion, inter alia, to modify a foreign amended judgment dated March 24, 2000, and entered in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Warren County, Probate Part, which was filed and entered pursuant to CPLR 5402 in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County, on August 2, 2000, from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), dated July 11, 2001, which granted the plaintiff's motion, inter alia, to modify the amount of the judgment against the defendant from $526,296 to $805,727.

Scott Scott, LLP, Smithtown, N.Y. (Jonathan C. Scott of counsel), for appellant.

Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger Vecchione, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Michael D. Loprete and Debra A. Clifford of counsel), for respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, HOWARD MILLER, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that the Supreme Court has the discretion to cure mistakes, defects, and irregularities in judgments that do not affect substantial rights of parties (see CPLR 5019[a]; Kiker v. Nassau County, 85 N.Y.2d 879; Aames Capital Corp. v. Davis, 295 A.D.2d 376). Here, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion, inter alia, to modify a foreign amended judgment entered in the Superior Court of New Jersey based upon a clerical mistake made by his counsel when filing and entering that foreign amended judgment pursuant to CPLR 5402. Contrary to the defendant's contention, "no substantial right is affected, and the [defendant] cannot be prejudiced, by correcting the * * * judgment to accurately reflect the obligation the [defendant] knew [he] owed" (Rodriguez v. Long Is. Coll. Hosp., 289 A.D.2d 556; see Kiker v. Nassau County, supra).

The defendant's remaining contentions are not properly before this court on the appeal.

ER, J.P., FRIEDMANN, H. MILLER and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Parkinson v. Bono

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 30, 2002
300 A.D.2d 640 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Parkinson v. Bono

Case Details

Full title:GEOFFREY M. PARKINSON, ETC., respondent, v. SALVATORE BONO, appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 30, 2002

Citations

300 A.D.2d 640 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
751 N.Y.S.2d 884

Citing Cases

IN MATTER OF RANCHO SANTA FE ASSN. v. DOLAN-KING

Finally, petitioner requests the court to cure the nonconformities in the filing of the California judgment…

In re Baker

In this instance, correcting the transcript to accurately reflect the relief granted by the decree does not…