and Turner post offices, the trial court did not err in granting plaintiffs’ motion for dismissal of defendant’s counterclaims regarding those post offices. Having resolved defendant’s assignments of error, we turn to plaintiffs’ cross-assignment of error. Plaintiffs cross-assign error to, but did not cross-appeal from, the court’s ruling that defendant timely filed his counterclaims. In response, defendant argues that, because plaintiffs’ cross-assignment of error seeks to modify the trial court’s $8,000 judgment for defendant on one of defendant’s counterclaims, it is not a proper cross-assignment under ORAP 5.57(2). We agree and reject plaintiffs’ cross-assignment of error without further discussion. See Samuel v. King, 186 Or App 684, 690-91, 64 P3d 1206, rev den, 335 Or 443 (2003) (<HOLDING>). Affirmed. 1 Strictly speaking, “there can be
holding that issues not raised before the district court cannot be raised for the first time before this court holding that issues not raised before the trial court cannot be raised on appeal holding a new constitutional challenge not raised in district court was not properly before court of appeals holding that arguments not raised before the trial court are waived holding that a respondents assignment of error that would yield relief different from that awarded by trial court judgment was not properly before appellate court unless raised by crossappeal