IN THE MATTER OF BEATRICE T

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

A motion to resettle the order in the Supreme Court, not an appeal therefrom, is the appropriate procedural vehicle to correct an inadvertent omission from the order so as to conform it to the underlying decision upon which it is based (see, CPLR 5019[a]; Herpe v. Herpe, 225 N.Y. 323; Gesvantner v. Dominguez, 273 A.D.2d 383; Washington v. Fuchs, 243 A.D.2d 707; Ansonia Assocs. v. Ansonia Tenant's Coalition, 171 A.D.2d 411, 412). In any event, there is no inconsistency between the underlying decision and the order appealed from that is subject to correction under CPLR 5019(a) (see, Hanover Ins. Co. v. Carley, 234 A.D.2d 268; Verdrager v. Verdrager, 230 A.D.2d 786; Hanlon v. Thonsen, 146 A.D.2d 743).