Kennedy v. Arif

Under the facts of this case, the Supreme Court properly directed the Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation (hereinafter MVAIC) to interpose an answer to the complaint (see Insurance Law § 5214; see generally Tirado v Miller, 75 AD3d 153 [2010]). MVAIC’s contention that the plaintiffs motion should have been denied because he failed to comply with Insurance Law § 5208, is raised for the first time on appeal and, thus, is not properly before this Court (see Luciano v Our Lady of Sorrows School, 79 AD3d 705 [2010]; Spagnole v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 77 AD3d 816 [2010]; Matter of Insurance Co. of N. Am. v Kaplun, 274 AD2d 293 , 299-300 [2000]). Rivera, J.E, Dillon, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.