in relevant part that [t]he court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record. The court may do so on motion or on its own, with or without notice. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a). Notably, Rule 60(a) “imposes no time limitations.” Truskoski v. ESPN, Inc., 60 F.3d 74, 77 (2d Cir.1995). “The general purpose of Rule 60(a) is to afford courts a means of modifying their judgments in order to ensure that the record reflects the actual intentions of the court.” Highland Capital Mgt., L.P. v. Schneider, 2008 WL 3884363, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Dudley ex rel. Estate of Patton v. Penn-America Ins. Co., 313 F.3d 662, 665 (2d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Rule 60(a) “permits the correction not only
holding that an appeal from a denial of a rule 59e motion should have been construed as seeking review of the underlying judgment holding that rule 60a is the proper vehicle for correcting a judgment in order to provide for an award of prejudgment interest where among other things governing law would make the interest award automatic or the district court clearly intended to make the interest award in its prior order holding in a case where the plaintiff had argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction to amend its judgment more than ten days after entry because that is the time limit under federal rule of civil procedure 59 that a district court can amend its judgment because of mistake or inadvertence months after judgment has been entered pursuant to rule 60b of the federal rules of civil procedure holding that rule 60a did not authorize the district court to change the rate of interest in its initial order holding that where a partys motion seeking an amended judgment to include an award of prejudgment interest did not invoke a specific federal rule of civil procedure the district court correctly construed it as a motion under rule 60a since the amended judgment did not affect substantive rights but merely corrected a judicial oversight namely the district courts failure to include the monetary award in the original judgment