Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff failed to sustain his burden (Lamarr v. Klein, 35 A.D.2d 248, affd 30 N.Y.2d 757) of demonstrating that the individual defendant is subject to the exercise of jurisdiction by courts of this State (CPLR 301, 302 [a]; cf., Roddy v Schmidt, 85 A.D.2d 756, affd 57 N.Y.2d 979). The plaintiff's contention that the individual defendant transacted business and owns property in New York through the acts of an agent was not raised before the court of first instance. This issue is therefore not properly before this court and may not be considered for the first time on appeal (see, Schoonmaker v State of New York, 94 A.D.2d 741; Arnold v. New City Condominiums Corp., 88 A.D.2d 578). Rubin, J.P., Kooper, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.