Opinion · Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Dependable Printed Circuit Corp. v. Mnemotron Corp.
Dependable Printed Cir. Corp. v. Mnemotron Corp., 22 A.D.2d 911 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 1964)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Date
- 1964-12-21
- Topic
- commercial
In an action to recover a balance due under a contract for the sale of goods, in which a judgment had been entered “ dismissing the action with prejudice,” the defendant appeals from a later judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, entered January 24, 1964, which: (a) in effect, granted plaintiff’s motion to resettle the original judgment so as to strike therefrom the phrase “with prejudice” and to substitute therefor the phrase “without prejudice;” and (to) which resettled the original judgment accordingly. Resettled judgment reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements; plaintiff’s motion to resettle denied; and original judgment directed to be reinstated. In our opinion, the resettlement herein changed the judgment in a matter of substance, and the Special Term had no revisory power over the judgment to effect such a change (see Herpe v. Herpe, 225 N. Y. 323).
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Dependable Printed Circuit Corp. v. Mnemotron Corp.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 5 opinions
In an action to recover a balance due under a contract for the sale of goods, in which a judgment had been entered “ dismissing the action with prejudice,” the defendant appeals from a later judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, entered January 24, 1964, which: (a) in effect, granted plaintiff’s motion to resettle the original judgment so as to strike therefrom the phrase “with prejudice” and to substitute therefor the phrase “without prejudice;” and (to) which resettled the original judgment accordingly. Resettled judgment reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements; plaintiff’s motion to resettle denied; and original judgment directed to be reinstated. In our opinion, the resettlement herein changed the judgment in a matter of substance, and the Special Term had no revisory power over the judgment to effect such a change (see Herpe v. Herpe, 225 N. Y. 323). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.