The petitioner's contention that OCA is equitably estopped from claiming that the statute of limitations commenced with his receipt of the denial letter is improperly raised for the first time on appeal in his reply brief (see Yasso v Town of Brookhaven, 219 A.D.3d 784, 787; Deustche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Smith, 211 A.D.3d 817, 819-820).
Lopez's remaining contention concerning the uncertified police accident report is not properly before this Court, as it is raised on appeal for the first time in her reply brief (see Yasso v Town of Brookhaven, 219 A.D.3d 784, 787; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Smith, 211 A.D.3d 817, 819-820).
In opposition, however, the defendants raised a triable issue of fact as to whether Lopez was comparatively at fault in the happening of the accident (see Joseph–Felix v. Hersh, 208 A.D.3d at 573, 173 N.Y.S.3d 591; Ustelimova v. Madar, 159 A.D.3d 984, 984, 72 N.Y.S.3d 595). [4] Lopez’s remaining contention concerning the uncertified police accident report is not properly before this Court, as it is raised on appeal for the first time in her reply brief (see Yasso v. Town of Brookhaven, 219 A.D.3d 784, 787, 194 N.Y.S.3d 564; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Smith, 211 A.D.3d 817, 819–820, 181 N.Y.S.3d 117). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the plaintiffs’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the defendants’ affirmative de- fenses alleging culpable conduct and comparative negligence insofar as asserted against Lopez.
The defendant's contention that the dismissal order was proper pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 is raised on appeal for the first time in his reply brief, and is not being considered as it is not properly before this Court (see Yasso v Town of Brookhaven, 219 A.D.3d 784, 787; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Smith, 211 A.D.3d 817, 819-820).
Accordingly, the court correctly granted that branch of the Kehlenbecks’ cross-motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. The Nortons’ remaining contention, that it is pure speculation that the plaintiff's decedent failed to stop at the intersection due to foliage on the Nortons’ property, is raised on appeal for the first time in their reply brief, and is not being considered as it is not properly before this Court (seeDeutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Smith, 211 A.D.3d 817, 819–820, 181 N.Y.S.3d 117 ). MILLER, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WARHIT and WAN, JJ., concur.