Kiker v. Nassau County, 85 N.Y.2d 879 (1995)

A court of original jurisdiction can correct a clerical error made by a clerk in calculating interest on a judgment, even after the appeals process is complete, when the correct interest rate is mandated by statute and was not a contested issue.

Summary

In this wrongful death action, a judgment was entered against Nassau County. The County Clerk mistakenly calculated interest at 9% instead of the statutory rate of 6%. The County sought to correct the judgment after the appeals process concluded. The New York Court of Appeals held that the trial court had the power to correct the clerk’s ministerial error under CPLR 5019(a), as the correct interest rate was dictated by statute, was not a contested issue, and the plaintiff demonstrated no prejudice from the delay in seeking the correction. The error did not affect a substantial right of the parties.

Facts

Plaintiff won a jury verdict in a wrongful death action against Nassau County, resulting in a judgment entered on September 22, 1989. The County Clerk erroneously calculated interest at 9% annually instead of the legally required 6% under General Municipal Law § 3-a (2). The judgment listed a total interest amount ($266,337.50) without specifying the calculation rate. The County apparently discovered the error in November 1991, after the Appellate Division affirmed the judgment and the appeals process concluded.

Procedural History

The County sought correction of the judgment via order to show cause, citing CPLR 2001 and 5019(a). The Supreme Court denied the motion, claiming it lacked power to correct the error. The Appellate Division reversed, holding the clerk’s assessment enlarged the judgment beyond the verdict and was a correctable ministerial error. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision.

Issue(s)

Whether a court of original jurisdiction has the power to correct a clerical error made by a clerk in calculating interest on a judgment, after the appeals process is complete, where the correct interest rate is mandated by statute and was not a matter of contention between the parties.

Holding

Yes, because CPLR 5019(a) allows trial and appellate courts the discretion to cure mistakes, defects, and irregularities that do not affect substantial rights of the parties, and in this case, the error was ministerial and the correct rate was dictated by statute.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that CPLR 5019(a) grants courts discretion to correct errors not affecting substantial rights. While interest rates can constitute a substantive right when litigated and determined by a judge, no substantive right was affected here. The correct rate was dictated by statute, the trial court never determined the rate, and the clerk’s error was ministerial. The court distinguished cases like Matter of City of New York [Roteeco Corp.], 33 NY2d 970 and Matter of McKenna v County of Nassau, 61 NY2d 739, where the interest rate was actively litigated. The Court emphasized that the plaintiff could not claim a right (9% interest) that never legally existed. The Court also noted that while laches may be considered in CPLR 5019(a) applications, the plaintiff showed no prejudice from the County’s delay. The court stated: “[a] judgment or order shall not be stayed, impaired or affected by any mistake, defect or irregularity in the papers or procedures in the action not affecting a substantial right of a party. A trial or an appellate court may require the mistake, defect or irregularity to be cured.”