Opinion
May 15, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is,
Ordered that the motion is granted.
The purported supplemental record and reply brief contain material that is dehors the record and may not be considered by this court in connection with the appeal (see, Broida v Bancroft, 103 A.D.2d 88, 93; Matter of Pan Am. Athletic Social Club v Commissioner of Fin. of City of N.Y., 94 A.D.2d 606, 608). Lawrence, J.P., Harwood, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.