An error in a ruling of the court shall be disregarded if a substantial right of a party is not prejudiced.
§ 2002.Error in ruling of court
Article 20. Mistakes, Defects, Irregularities and Extensions of Time · Last amended 1963 · Last verified July 21, 2026
In one sentenceCPLR 2002 tells a court to disregard its own erroneous ruling if the error didn't prejudice a substantial right of a party, extending the same harmless-error approach in CPLR 2001 to judicial rulings themselves.
Full Text of CPLR 2002
Plain-English Summary
CPLR 2001 covers mistakes in a party's papers and filings; CPLR 2002 covers mistakes the court itself makes. A single sentence does the job: an error in a ruling of the court is disregarded if it didn't prejudice a substantial right of a party.
The rule keeps appeals and post-judgment motions focused on errors that matter. Not every misstep in the course of a case -- a wrong date on an order, a ruling later corrected on the record -- requires reversal or a do-over. The question is whether the error changed the outcome or denied a party a fair chance to be heard, not whether the ruling was flawless.
Frequently Asked Questions
What happens if a judge makes an erroneous ruling in a New York case?
Under CPLR 2002, the error is disregarded if it didn't prejudice a substantial right of a party, meaning not every mistaken ruling requires reversal or a new proceeding.
Is every judicial error a basis to overturn a decision in New York?
No. CPLR 2002 applies a harmless-error standard: only errors that prejudice a substantial right of a party matter.
How does CPLR 2002 differ from CPLR 2001?
CPLR 2001 addresses mistakes and defects in a party's papers or filings, while CPLR 2002 addresses errors in the court's own rulings, applying the same no-prejudice standard to both.
What is a substantial right in the context of CPLR 2002?
It refers to a party's actual ability to litigate or defend the case, as distinguished from a technical or harmless slip in a court's ruling that didn't affect the outcome.
Can CPLR 2002 be raised on appeal?
Yes, it's commonly invoked to argue that a lower court's error, even if real, doesn't warrant reversal because it caused no prejudice to a substantial right.
Advisory Committee Notes
This section contains the substance of CPA § 106. It complements new CPLR § 2001. The language in CPA § 106 limiting it to appeals and motions for a new trial has been omitted; thus the provision will also apply, for example, on a motion to set aside a verdict under new CPLR § 4404 Cf. Fed R Civ P 61 (“no error or defect in any ruling or order . . . is ground for granting a new trial or for setting aside a verdict”).
Amendment History
Add, L 1962, ch 308, § 1, eff Sept 1, 1963.
Source & verification. Provision text, History, and Advisory
Committee Notes are reproduced verbatim from the Consolidated Laws of New York.
Last verified July 21, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: harmless error New York court rulingerror in court ruling CPLRsubstantial right prejudice court errorCPLR 2002 harmless error rule