[brief] \(^2\) --- \(^1\)  See Defendant-Respondents’ Brief in Support of Summary Judgment, Trans Id. [...] at Points III through VII.  \(^2\)  See Plaintiff-Appellant’s Brief in Opposition to Defendant-Respondents’ Motion for Summary Judgment, Trans Id. [...] at 8, 10-11.  Plaintiff did not file a response or otherwise oppose [...]’s cross motion for summary judgment.  T5:9-6:10.  [...] filed its Reply Brief on January 30, 2024.  Pa147.  The Honorable [...], J.S.C. heard oral argument on the motions on February 2, 2024.  T1.  During the oral argument, [...] confirmed that [...]’s motion was unopposed and that there was no objection to the court entering an order granting the motion as unopposed.  T5:9-6:10.  The court adopted the unopposed factual and legal arguments made by [...] -- which includes the fact that [...] owns and controls the crossing -- and granted [...]’s motion based on those facts and arguments.  T5:9-6:10; Da33-34, ¶¶1-5, Da39-40, ¶¶6-9.  During the oral argument, the court found that it was undisputed that [...] was stepping through a crossing while a southbound train was already occupying track two and blocking her way across the crossing.  T6:25-7:3.  The court also confirmed that Plaintiff does not dispute the fact that the pedestrian signal was indicating that [...] should not go onto the crossing when she did, that she did not have the right of way, and that the train had the right of way and the proceed signal.  T8:4-9:1.  The court also confirmed that Plaintiff conceded that the Railroad Defendants owned, at a minimum, a right of way where the crossing is located and the collision occurred.  T13:22-14:1, 18:20-21.  Next, the court interpreted how N.J.S.A. 48:12-152 applies to the undisputed facts, concluding as follows.  First, subsection (a) prohibits non-railroad employees from entering onto a railroad right of way, except it does not prohibit them from entering onto a railroad right of way at a crossing established by the railroad.  T17:11-19:17, 22:15-23:1.  Second, subsection (b)(5) clarifies subsection (a) by prohibiting a person from using “the property of any railroad in a manner in which it was not intended to be used or in violation of posted regulations. ”  Ibid.  Third, when reading subsection (a) and (b) together, the only logical conclusion is that the meaning of “the property of any railroad” in subsection (b) includes a railroad’s “right of way”.  Therefore, [...] concluded that the statute bars Plaintiff’s claims because the collision occurred while [...] was using the railroad’s property in a manner in which it was not intended to be used by entering the crossing on [...]’s right of way when she was not permitted, while a train was already present on the crossing, and while the train she ultimately collided with had the right of way was imminently approaching the crossing.  Ibid.  [...] entered an Order dismissing Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint with prejudice on February 5, 2024.  Pa1.  The same day, Plaintiff requested a more detailed order stating that the motion was granted because the Railroad Defendants are immune from liability pursuant to N.J.S.A. 48:12-152.  Da43.  The court then entered an order vacating the February 5, 2024, order on February 14, 2024, and replaced it the same day with an order stating that summary judgment was granted because the Railroad Defendants are immune from liability pursuant to N.J.S.A. 48:12-152, as Plaintiff requested.  Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on February 26, 2024.  Pa6.  An Amended Notice of Appeal was filed on March 1, 2024.  Pa11.