[brief] THE CHANCERY DIVISION ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR TRESPASS (T60:25–64:3)  In the Third Count of his Complaint, Plaintiff asserts a claim for trespass predicated on allegations that Defendants entered Plaintiff’s land and caused damage to Plaintiff’s plants by placing branches on them.  [11a].  “An action for trespass arises upon the unauthorized entry onto another’s property, real or personal,” and is actionable “irrespective of any appreciable injury. ”  *Pinkowski v. Twp. of Montclair*, 299 N.J. Super. 557, 571 (App. Div. 1997) (citation omitted).  “[T]respass is a possessory action,” and therefore “one in possession may maintain an action without showing title in the damaged property. ”  *Balinski v. A. Capone & Sons*, 1 N.J. Super. 215, 217 (App. Div. 1949).  “Sound principle and persuasive authority support the allowance to an aggrieved landowner of the fair cost of restoring his land to a reasonable approximation of its former condition, without necessary limitation to the diminution in the market value of the land, where a trespasser has destroyed shade or ornamental trees or shrubbery having peculiar value to the owner. ”  *Huber v. Serpico*, 71 N.J. Super. 329, 345 (App. Div. 1962).  The Chancery Division erred in granting summary judgment on Plaintiff’s trespass claim based on lack of evidence that Defendants’ caused damage to Plaintiff’s plants.  [T62:25–64:3].  Notwithstanding its acknowledgment that Plaintiff had testified that Defendant [...] had admitted that he caused the branches to be placed on Plaintiff’s plants, the Chancery Division apparently sought to support its decision to disregard that testimony by misquoting and misapplying *Hoffman v. Asseenontv.Com, Inc.*, which recognized that “‘conclusory and self-serving assertions’ in certifications without explanatory or supporting facts will not defeat a meritorious motion for summary judgment. ”  404 N.J. Super. 415, 426 (App. Div. 2009) (emphasis added) (quoting Puder v. Buechel, 183 N.J. 428, 440 (2005)).  The Chancery Division misquoted Hoffman as it omitted the bolded words above “in certifications. ”  [See T63:9–11].  That omission is material because Plaintiff proffered evidence of Defendant [...]’s admission in the form of deposition testimony regarding a direct conversation, rather than as a conclusory certification filed in opposition to summary judgment.  Plaintiff’s deposition testimony that Defendant [...] had admitted that he caused the branches to be placed on Plaintiff’s plants [131a at 26:2–17] is evidence of a “party-opponent’s own statement,” and therefore is not excluded by the hearsay rule.  N.J.R.E. 803(b).  Moreover, Defendant [...] admitted at his own deposition that he had placed the branches in that area.  [210a (42:24–43:9, 43:17–20)].  Taken together, the summary judgment record leaves no doubt that Defendant [...] made an unauthorized entry to Plaintiff’s property (i.e., the plants he purchased and cultivated, as well as the land on which they were cultivated) and caused damage thereto by placing branches thereon.  Consequently, Defendants failed to sustain their burden of establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the order granting summary judgment in their favor on the trespass claim should be reversed.  **CONCLUSION**