Based on Zirinsky's nonliability and the factual issues whether the sublease is enforceable against Creative Media Design, the court also denies plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on defendants' liability for breach of the sublease. Since defendants do not dispute that the deadline for proof of insurance was before plaintiffs took possession of the premises, and defendants never permitted plaintiffs' possession, the court searches the record of defendants' motion on their fourth counterclaim and grants plaintiffs summary judgment dismissing that counterclaim even though they did not cross-move X for that relief. Id.; Otto v. Otto, 192 A.D.3d 517, 518 (1st Dep't 2021). See Dunham v. Hilco Constr. Co., 89 N.Y.2d 425, 429-30 (1996).

Therefore the court grants summary judgment in favor of defendants, the non-moving parties, dismissing plaintiff's promissory estoppel claim on which plaintiff moved for summary judgment. C.P.L.R. § 3212(b); Otto v. Otto, 192 A.D.3d 517, 518 (1st Dep't 2021). See Dunham v. Hilco Constr. Co., 89 N.Y.2d 425, 429-30 (1996).

Although plaintiff did not move for summary judgment on these claims, the court may search the record and grant summary judgment in his favor because the claims are the subject of defendant Carrion's motion for summary judgment (C.P.L.R. § 3212(b); Otto v Otto, 192 A.D.3d 517, 518 (1st Dept 2021]; see Dunham v. Hilco Constr. Co., 89 N.Y.2d 425[1996]; Estate of Mirjani v DeVito, 135 A.D.3d 616 [1st Dept 2016])).

Although plaintiff did not move for summary judgment on these claims, the court may search the record and grant summary judgment in his favor because both claims are the subject of EGK Realty's motion for summary judgment. C.P.L.R. § 3212(b) ; Otto v. Otto , 192 A.D.3d 517, 518, 140 N.Y.S.3d 414 (1st Dep't 2021).