She further contends that she was prejudiced by the defendant's failure to issue a disclaimer and partial payment because the statutory maximum she could receive if she filed a claim with the MVAIC is $25,000, and, therefore, she could not recover the full $75,000 default judgment amount. These arguments are raised for the first time on appeal, and are not properly before this Court (see Matter of Baig, 192 A.D.3d 1010, 1013; NYU Hosp. for Joint Diseases v Country Wide Ins. Co., 84 A.D.3d 1043, 1044; Matter of Panetta v Carroll, 62 A.D.3d 1010). Accordingly, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from.

However, copies of the records upon which the meteorologist relied in forming his opinion were not attached to the report, and thus, the report has no probative value (seeCotter v. Brookhaven Mem. Hosp. Med. Ctr., Inc., 97 A.D.3d 524, 525, 947 N.Y.S.2d 608 ; Daniels v. Meyers, 50 A.D.3d 1613, 1614, 857 N.Y.S.2d 403 ; Schuster v. Dukarm, 38 A.D.3d 1358, 1359, 831 N.Y.S.2d 619 ). RGP's contention that it sustained its prima facie burden by demonstrating that it lacked actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition, raised for the first time on appeal, is not properly before this Court (seeMatter of Baig, 192 A.D.3d 1010, 144 N.Y.S.3d 727 ). Since RGP failed to meet its prima facie burden, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposition papers (seeWinegrad v. New York Univ.

However, copies of the records upon which the meteorologist relied in forming his opinion were not attached to the report, and thus, the report has no probative value (see Cotter v Brookhaven Mem. Hosp. Med. Ctr., Inc., 97 A.D.3d 524, 525; Daniels v Meyers, 50 A.D.3d 1613, 1614; Schuster v Dukarm, 38 A.D.3d 1358, 1359). RGP's contention that it sustained its prima facie burden by demonstrating that it lacked actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition, raised for the first time on appeal, is not properly before this Court (see Matter of Baig, 192 A.D.3d 1010). Since RGP failed to meet its prima facie burden, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, regardless of the sufficiency of the opposition papers (see Winegrad v New York Univ.