On January 23, 2026, Justice Boddie of the Kings County Commercial Division issued a decision in Huebner v. Elberg, 2026 NY Slip Op. 30293(U), holding that a cross-motion may not be made seeking relief from a party that was not the movant for the initial motion, explaining:
It is well settled that a cross motion is an improper vehicle for seeking affirmative relief from a nonmoving party. Here, it is undisputed that Elberg was the sole moving party on the underlying order to show cause, and that Abrams appears only as a nominal defendant.
Because Abrams was not a moving party and the issues raised in Elberg’s motion did not concern Abrams’ conduct or discovery obligations, plaintiffs’ attempt to obtain affirmative relief against Abrams by way of cross-motion is procedurally improper. Additionally, it is undisputed that plaintiff failed to comply with 22 NYCRR § 202.7, under which a motion relating to disclosure must be accompanied by an affirmation from moving counsel attesting that he or she has conferred with counsel for the opposing party in a good faith effort to resolve the issues raised by the motion.
Accordingly, the branch of plaintiffs’ cross-motion seeking an order compelling Abrams to serve a privilege log is denied.
(Internal citations omitted).