NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

PER CURIAM.

This opinion supersedes our prior decision in this matter. On July 20, 2011, we issued an opinion reversing the January 22, 2010 order that denied plaintiff's motion to vacate an earlier order dismissing his complaint pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e). Raspavolo v. N.J. State Police, No. A-3099-09 (App. Div. July 20, 2011) (slip op. at 2). In that opinion we noted that the record was devoid of any decision or statement of reasons by the motion judge in support of the January 22, 2010 order. Id. at 6-7. We nonetheless reversed to afford plaintiff an opportunity to have his opposition to defendants' dismissal motion considered on the merits. Id. at 7-8.

On July 27, 2011, we received a letter from the motion judge advising that he had orally supplemented the record pursuant to Rule 2:5-1(b) on March 12, 2010, by stating "supplementary findings of fact and conclusions of law, upon which [his] decision was based." We have never been provided with that statement of reasons.

"A party on appeal is obliged to provide the court with `such . . . parts of the record . . . as are essential to the proper consideration of the issues.'" Soc'y Hill Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Soc'y Hill Assocs., 347 N.J.Super. 163, 177 (App. Div. 2002) (quoting Rule 2:6-1(a)(1)(H)). Thus, plaintiff's failure to provide us with the judge's supplemental statement of reasons constitutes a deficiency "which renders review impossible. . . ." Ibid. Without that statement of reasons, "we have no basis for determining that" the judge erred in denying plaintiff's motion to vacate the prior dismissal order. Ibid. Since plaintiff has "presented the matter to us in a manner which rendered review on the merits impossible, we have no alternative but to affirm." Id. at 177-78.

Affirmed.