With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Judgment affirmed. Ray and Branch, JJ., concur in judgment only. 1 After the trial court granted summary judgment to Cornerstone, Kovacs filed a motion for reconsideration and attached an affidavit stating that he did not have health insurance at the time of the accident. The trial court denied Kovacs’s motion for reconsideration, and Kovacs did not enumerate that ruling as error. Since Kovacs’s affidavit was filed after the order granting summary judgment was entered, it was not considered by the trial court in reviewing Cornerstone’s motion for summary judgment, and issues raised therein will not now be considered by this Court. See Glenn v. Maddux, 149 Ga.App. 158, 159(2) (253 SE2d 835) (1979); see also Strickland v.DeKalb Hosp.Auth., 197 Ga.App. 63, 64(1) (397 SE2d 576) (1990) (<HOLDING>) (citations and punctuation omitted); Mazdak

A: holding that an affidavit in opposition to a motion for summary judgment that is not served at least one day before the hearing is barred by the civil practice act from consideration as evidence unless the record discloses the trial court in the exercise of its discretion has allowed the affidavit to be served and considered
B: holding that the party moving for summary judgment waived its argument that the opposing partys affidavit should not be considered because the moving party never objected to the timeliness of the affidavit to the trial court
C: holding that hearsay in affidavit which would be inadmissible in evidence at trial could not be considered on motion for summary judgment
D: holding that the court may disregard an affidavit submitted solely for the purpose of opposing a motion for summary judgment when that affidavit is directly contradicted by deposition testimony and the nonmovant does not explain the discrepancies
A.