Opinion
November 27, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and the papers filed in opposition and relation thereto, it is,
Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,
Ordered that the portions of the appellant's reply brief which argue that: (1) the plaintiff was entitled to an inference as to the accuracy of his expert's testimony as to the transport of the plaintiff's mother, (2) the defendants failed to establish an "error in judgment" defense, (3) the Supreme Court erred in failing to give a circumstantial evidence charge, (4) the interrogatory removed the issue of whether the defendants timely diagnosed the plaintiff's mother, and (5) the Supreme Court's charge on "error of judgment" was erroneous, are stricken from the reply brief because they were raised for the first time in the reply brief (see, State Farm Fire Cas. Co. v LiMauro, 103 A.D.2d 514, affd 65 N.Y.2d 369). O'Brien, J.P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.