Based on this procedural failure, the court marked both the motion and the cross motion off calendar with leave to renew after plaintiffs' compliance with the rules. Rather than marking the motions off calendar, the motion court should have scheduled a conference and then decided the motions if the conference did not resolve the parties' disputes ( see generally Costigan Co. v Costigan, 304 AD2d 464). Although the parties have briefed the merits on this appeal, the motion court never ruled on the issues presented in the motion or the cross motion. Accordingly, the matter is remanded for the court to hold whatever conference it deems appropriate and, if any such conference does not resolve the disputes, to decide the discovery motion and the cross motion ( see Barrett v Toroyan, 35 AD3d 278).

The April 13 order, which was issued on plaintiff's motion for disclosure and merely states "motion is withdrawn," was either made in error, as plaintiff claims not to have withdrawn his motion, or improperly transcribed, and we accordingly remand for a further statement of the court's decision. The representation on appeal that the order was based on the motion court's rules requiring leave of the court to make a disclosure motion must be mistaken, in view of the precedents of this Court invalidating such rules ( see Matter of Hochberg v Davis 171 AD2d 192; Costigan Co. v Costigan, 304 AD2d 464).