Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The evidence in the record, including the defendant physician's own notations, adequately supports the plaintiff's claim that her office visit on February 7, 1985, was directly related to the surgical procedure previously performed by the defendant and was part of a continuing series of postoperative visits (see, CPLR 214-a). Moreover, the record supports the conclusion that on that date, the parties contemplated additional visits related to the same matter (see, McDermott v. Torre, 56 N.Y.2d 399; Ward v Kaufman, 120 A.D.2d 929). Under these circumstances, we discern no basis for disturbing the Supreme Court's determination that this visit was part of the continuous treatment rendered by the defendant, and that the plaintiff's action was therefore timely commenced (see, CPLR 214-a).
We have considered the parties' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Finally, we note that the deposition testimony appended to both parties' appellate briefs is dehors the record and has not been considered in the disposition of this appeal. Kooper, J.P., Sullivan, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.