[brief] On February 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint for injuries she sustained on March 8, 2018, when defendants, [...], [...], and [...] (collectively hereinafter “Defendants”) failed to properly maintain a common area of high foot traffic, failed to provide proper notice to business invitees of a dangerous condition that existed, failed to correct a dangerous condition that they knew or should have known existed, and failed to properly inspect its property in order to discover dangerous and hazardous conditions which caused [...] to slip and fall.  (Da90-94).  Defendants filed an Answer on April 28, 2020.  (Da95-105).  On November 29, 2022, Defendants filed a Motion in Limine requesting that the trial court take judicial notice of the weather-related State of Emergency issued on March 6, 2018.  Plaintiff opposed the motion on January 13, 2023.  The trial court denied this initial motion in limine requesting judicial notice on the State of Emergency on February 17, 2023.  On May 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion in Limine to bar Defendants from referencing the “State of Emergency” in effect at the time of Plaintiff’s fall at the time of trial.  Defendants filed opposition on May 30, 2023, and also filed a separate Motion in Limine seeking to bar many things.  For the purpose of this Appeal, the only relevant things sought by Defendants were to bar Plaintiff from referencing the terms of the snow removal contracts, to bar evidence regarding the nonrenewal or termination of defendant [...] after the 2018 snow season, and an improper motion for reconsideration, disguised as a motion in limine, to “relax” the Court’s prior decision to not take judicial notice of the State of Emergency.  Plaintiff filed her reply brief to her Motion to Bar on June 9, 2023.  On July 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed her opposition to Defendants’ motion in limine barring many things.  Only July 10, 2023, Defendants supplemented Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Bar reference to the State of Emergency.  In response to the supplemental opposition, Plaintiff submitted a reply brief on July 17, 2023.  On July 18, 2023, Defendants filed a reply brief on its Motion in Limine to bar many things.  Oral Argument on all Motion in Limines was held on July 19, 2023.  (IT).  The trial court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Bar Referencing the State of Emergency at the time of trial.  (1T).  In addition, the Court denied Defendants’ motion in limine in relevant part, seeking to bar reference to the terms of the snow removal contract.  (1T).  In addition, the trial court granted Defendant motion to bar evidence regarding the non-renewal or termination of [...] after the 2018 snow season but provided Plaintiff the ability to ask Defendants about the satisfaction of the services.  (1T).  Moreover, the trial court denied Defendants’ untimely motion for reconsideration regarding the judicial notice of the State of Emergency.  (1T).  Trial in this matter began on July 24, 2023, and concluded on August 1, 2023.  The jury returned a verdict finding that defendant [...] was 20% negligent; that defendant [...] was 27% negligent; that defendant [...] was 41% negligent; and that Plaintiff was 12% negligent.  (Da76-78).  On September 29, 2023, Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal challenging the rulings in limine about judicial notice, the snow removal agreements and seeking a new trial on liability only, due to the alleged reversible errors that occurred.  (Da79-89).  COUNTERSTATEMENT OF FACTS