On a prior appeal in this action for an accounting upon the dissolution of a law partnership, this court modified the judgment in various respects ( 161 A.D.2d 438, amended 164 A.D.2d 794, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 713), whereupon a resettled judgment was entered. Thereafter, defendants moved to reduce the resettled judgment by amounts which plaintiff assertedly had admitted receiving, but for which defendants were not credited. Supreme Court found it had no power to review the matter after review and affirmance by the Appellate Division, citing Blumenstock v Weissman ( 47 Misc.2d 266, affd 50 Misc.2d 119 [App Term]), and Merrill v Robinson ( 106 A.D.2d 818, lv dismissed 64 N.Y.2d 608). We agree that the modification sought by defendants is substantive and thus cannot be accepted (Herpe v Herpe, 225 N.Y. 323). Nor is there any basis for this court to modify either its prior order or the resulting resettled judgment, and we instead emphasize the need for finality and an end to litigation.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Kupferman, Asch and Smith, JJ.