With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Fla. 33, 139 So. 360 (1932) (observing that a reviewing court will not take judicial notice of what may be contained in the record or pleadings of another case, unless the record or pleadings of the other case are made a part of the record or pleadings of the ease under consideration). The trial court’s attempt to take judicial notice did not comply with the notice provisions of section 90.204(1), Florida Statutes (1991), even if those matters were proper matters for judicial notice, an issue which we do not decide here. We agree with the agency that the judicial notice procedure was prejudicial, because the agency lacked warning that the record of the prior case would be considered in the instant case. Cf. Mennella Plastering, Inc. v. Adobe Brick & Supply Co., 273 So.2d 1 (Fla.1973) (<HOLDING>). We therefore reverse and remand for a new

A: holding that error in taking judicial notice of a prior ease was harmless where the entire record of the prior case although not introduced into evidence was made part of the record on appeal and no prejudice was shown
B: holding that evidence not submitted to the district court cannot be part of the record on appeal
C: holding that this line of cases was not on point and that no error was apparent on the face of the record due to lack of reporters record from defaultjudgment hearing because the judgment reflected that it was based only on the pleadings and affidavits that were in the record
D: holding error in admission of evidence is harmless when it was merely cumulative to other evidence in the record
A.