[brief] *Id.*  The evidential record showed that the home had been purchased in 2008, after the death of the previous owner, and that the plan “was to renovate the property and eventually, the [[...]’s] son . . . would reside there. ”  *Id.* at *1*.  The renovations “stretched over the seven years prior to plaintiff’s accident and were not completed until about six months thereafter. ”  *Id.*  Once the renovations were completed, however, the [...]s’ son did not move into the property, as the defendants at that point instead opted to rent out the property instead.  *Ibid.*  Upon motion, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants explaining that the “property was not commercial at the time of the accident because it was not being used for business activity in any fashion. ”  *Id.* at *2*.  The Motion Judge indicated that the “dispositive factor” in his analysis was not the capacity of the property to generate income at some indeterminate point in the future, but rather on whether the property ha[d] in the past or at the [time of the alleged injury been] used to generate income.  Id. at *2.  The motion court further noted that the defendants “were not actively marketing the home for sale or rental, nor made it accessible to potential buyers or tenants. ”  Ibid.  On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the property was akin to a “rental home” and should therefore be considered commercial.  Ibid.  The plaintiff specifically argued that because there were people making renovations to the property, defendants were liable to them and anyone else traversing the sidewalk adjoining the front of the property.  Plaintiff argue[d] since the property was a rental home, it should be considered a commercial property.  Id. at *2 (Emphasis added).  The Appellate Division affirmed the motion court’s decision as “the record established the property was not used for commercial purposes. ”  Id. at *3.  The Appellate Division was further convinced that “the property was not being used for a commercial purpose and was not intended to be used in that capacity at the time of plaintiff’s accident. ”  Ibid.  To the extent certain arguments raised by the plaintiff were not specifically addressed, such as the argument that the property should be considered commercial because “there were people making renovations,” the Appellate Division found that such arguments “lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion” citing R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).  Id. at *3.  In light of New Jersey’s clear jurisprudence on the issue, to argue that the [...]’ property was anything but a residential property is a stretch of monumental proportions.  The fact that at the time of plaintiff-appellant’s fall the [...] were not yet living at [...] and had the house undergoing renovations to prepare for their move-in does nothing to change these conclusions.  Plaintiff-appellant has offered no legal precedent – either in New Jersey or any other jurisdiction – that would support her claim that there should be a change in the law to a so-called “hybrid” application.  Consequently, plaintiff-appellant’s argument in her appeal based on the contention that the [...]’ property should somehow be seen as a commercial property should be flatly rejected by this Court.