power to correct error in New York

2000The June 15th order, however, in fact ordered consolidation, and the court lacks the power to correct an error of substance in a prior order even upon a motion under CPLR 5019 (see, Bolger v Davis, 127 AD2d 979 ).

1979Initially, we point out that even though appellant failed to except to the charge, such failure does not deprive this court of the power to correct the error in the interest of justice (Martin v City of Cohoes, 37 NY2d 162 ).

1964Finnegan v. McBride, 226 N. Y. 252, 259 .) It would not, however, permit a change in a determination already made — one not based upon reasons like those given above.

1964We must bear in mind the injunction contained in Matter of Evans v. Monaghan ( 306 N. Y. 312, 323 ) where Van Voorhis, J. said: “ Security of person and property requires that determinations in the field of administrative law should be given as much finality as is reasonably possible.” That does not preclude, however, the power to correct error by setting aside a determination which ‘ ‘ was the result of illegality, irregularity in vital matters, or fraud.” (People ex rel.

1906The receiver having brought an action, and the error having come to light, he was allowed to amend the order nunc pro tunc; and in affirming the order the court said (p. 448): "We think that, under section 723 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court had the power to correct the error and properly did so, and that the defendants were not thereby injured.” See, also, Matter of Christian Jensen Co., 128 N. Y. 550 ; Thousand Island Park Assn. v. Gridley, 25 App. Div. 499 ; Matter of Quo Vadis Amusement Co., 82 id. 240.

1906The receiver having brought an action, and the error having come to light, he was allowed to amend the order nunc pro tunc; and in affirming the order the court said (p. 448): "We think that, under section 723 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court had the power to correct the error and properly did so, and that the defendants were not thereby injured.” See, also, Matter of Christian Jensen Co., 128 N. Y. 550 ; Thousand Island Park Assn. v. Gridley, 25 App. Div. 499 ; Matter of Quo Vadis Amusement Co., 82 id. 240.

1883The case of Keogh v. Westervelt ( 66 N. Y., 636 ), does not hold and decide that this court has not the power to correct an error either of law or fact, committed by the referee, if no exception has been taken in due time and form; but is an authority that the Court of Appeals cannot examine into an error of law, committed by a referee, without such an exception.