Contrary to appellant Tower Insurance Company's argument, the award of summary judgment in Tower's favor in the previously concluded Insurance Law § 3420 action by plaintiffs against Tower was not preclusive of the amendment sought by plaintiffs in the judgment obtained by them in the underlying personal injury action. The court in the Insurance Law action did not, and had no need to, determine that defendants and their premises were not in fact insured by Tower, only that the judgment in the underlying personal injury action, as it then read, was not against Tower's insureds and thus was not a proper predicate for plaintiff's Insurance Law § 3420 action. Inasmuch as it is clear from the record that the defect in judgment was solely attributable to an inadvertent notational error and did not result from or represent the adjudication of a matter of substance, it was precisely the type of "mistake, defect or irregularity in the papers or procedures in the action" the correction of which was properly accomplished pursuant to CPLR 5019(a) (see, Herpe v. Herpe, 225 N.Y. 323; cf., Pjetri v. New York City Health Hosp. Corp., 169 A.D.2d 100, lv denied 74 N.Y.2d 615).
We have considered Tower's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.