DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The appellant did not assert the limited immunity provisions of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 Veh. Traf.(b) as a basis for the granting of summary judgment in its favor until the submission of its reply papers, and thus the respondents did not have a fair opportunity to respond to that contention. Under these circumstances, that contention is not properly before this court, and need not be addressed (see, Matter of Falk v. Village of Scarsdale Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 254 A.D.2d 358; Turkish Airlines v. American Airlines, 249 A.D.2d 463; Galatti v. Alliance Funding Co., 228 A.D.2d 550; Matter of TIG Insurance Company v. Pellegrini, 258 A.D.2d 658). The appellant otherwise failed to demonstrate its entitlement to summary judgment.
BRACKEN, J.P., SULLIVAN, ALTMAN and KRAUSMAN, JJ., concur.