Plaintiffs' argument that the hospital had apparent authority over the ambulette service, and is therefore vicariously liable for the ambulette driver's alleged negligence, is improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see Ta-Chotani v. Doubleclick, Inc., 276 A.D.2d 313), and we decline to review it. In any event, the ambulette service was an independent contractor for whose negligence the hospital cannot be held liable (see Kleeman v. Rheingold, 81 N.Y.2d 270, 273).