
    DAVID DINKELSPIEL, EDWARD OPPENHEIMER and HENRY HYMAN, Respondents, v. GABRIEL LEVY, an Infant, by BERTHA LEVY, his Guardian ad litem, Appellant.
    
      Amendment of recitals in order — by what justice it should be made.
    
    Appeal from an order amending a preceding order, in its recital of papers read upon the hearing of a motion.
    The court at General Term said: “ The application made for the correction of the order was not strictly regular, because it w*as made before a justice who did not hear the motion. But it was in no sense an application to review or modify the decision which had been made in the case. It was simply to enlarge the reciting portion of the order, by inserting a statement of certain record evidence pertinent to the case and probably considered in its disposition. It was probably what the justice deciding the preceding motion would at once have directed on a mere suggestion for that purpose; and, under the circumstances, the order should not be reversed, even if the appeal from it was proper, merely to afford the applicants an opportunity to renew the application before the justice who heard the original motion.
    But as the course taken to secure the correction of the order was not entirely regular, and the practice of applying to one justice to correct the orders directed by another is not to be recommended, the order appealed from should be affirmed without costs.”
    
      JBenno loewy, for the appellant. Albert Cardoso, for the respondents.
   Opinion by

Daniels, J.;

Davis, P. J., concurred.

Present — Davis, P. J., Brady and Daniels, JJ.

Order affirmed, without costs.  