Rule 1:6-3 pertains to the filing and service of motions and cross-motions. The rule provides in pertinent part that:
[a] cross-motion may be filed and served by the responding party together with that party’s opposition to the motion and noticed for the same return date only if it relates to the subject matter of the original motion. Other than in Family Part motions brought under Part V of these Rules, a cross-motion relating to the subject matter of the original motion shall, if timely filed pursuant to this rule, relate back to the date of the filing of the original motion.  Â
The rule thus makes clear that a cross-motion must “relate to the subject matter of the original motion.†Id. The Marangos court further held that; It is clear, therefore, that Rule 1:6-3(b) requires that the subject matter of all cross-motions relate back to the subject matter of the original motion.In the instant case, the defendant’s motion sought a modification of his child support and alimony obligations. However, the plaintiff’s cross-motion was not addressed to child support or alimony but raised numerous issues regarding other provisions of the final judgment. The Appellate Division further held that the trial court correctly found that plaintiff’s cross-motion did not comply with Rule 1:6-3(b) because it did not “relate to the subject matter†of the defendant’s motion. In summary, the Appellate Division held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to consider the plaintiff’s demands for relief, with the exception of plaintiff’s application to compel the defendant to pay his share of S.M.’s college expenses. In conclusion, the Appellate Division held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to consider and denying without prejudice all of the demands for relief in plaintiff’s cross-motion, except for the application regarding S.M.’s college expenses.