Opinion
January 4, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Eugene Nardelli, J.).
Contrary to the arguments of the parties on appeal, the order on appeal was not a vacatur of a default order or the grant of reargument of a prior motion for dismissal, but vacatur of an order dismissing the complaint as a sanction for noncompliance with discovery under CPLR 3126. A court has the inherent power, in the interest of justice, to vacate a prior order (Matter of Allen v. Murphy, 45 A.D.2d 693, 694 [1st Dept 1974]). The motion court, under the circumstances of this case, did not abuse its discretion and appropriately gave the plaintiff one final opportunity to respond to Armor's notice of discovery and inspection (Zletz v. Vilca, 144 A.D.2d 300 [1st Dept 1988]). The order vacated had not been a dismissal as against defendant Fiat which, accordingly, is not an aggrieved party (CPLR 5511).
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Ross, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.