[brief] Plaintiffs/Respondents [...] (“[...]”), [...] (“[...]”), [...] (“[...]”), and [...] (“[...],” and collectively with [...], [...], and [...], “Plaintiffs”) respectfully submit this memorandum of law in opposition to the brief filed in this appeal by defendant/appellant [...] (the “Borough”).  Plaintiffs collectively own real property in the Borough consisting of four residential multifamily and mixed-use apartment buildings containing nearly 1,000 tenants, for which Plaintiffs pay approximately $1.7 million per year to the Borough in property taxes.  After receiving final approvals from the Borough in 2004, Plaintiffs began construction of their development in 2005, which involved the building of two connected public streets throughout the various parcels (defined in the “Statement of Facts” section of this brief as the “Roads”).  Plaintiffs built additional buildings, and improvements to the Roads, in 2011-2013, and 2013-2015, all in accordance with a recorded subdivision map, approved by the Borough, that showed the Roads as being dedicated to the Borough upon their completion.  In accordance with a settlement that Plaintiffs reached with the Borough in the second of two years-long Mount Laurel affordable housing lawsuits that Plaintiffs were forced to bring, Plaintiffs applied to the Borough Planning Board in 2018 for approval to build additional residential buildings on their property.  In response to questioning from the Planning Board, Plaintiffs submitted documentation showing that the Roads were public streets: i.e., they had been dedicated to the Borough on the two recorded subdivision maps relating to their development, and that such dedication was automatically accepted by the Borough in accordance with N.J.S.A. 40:55D-53.j.  As part of its 2019 approval of Plaintiffs’ site plan, the Planning Board required that Plaintiffs request a resolution from the Borough Council acknowledging the Roads to be public streets (which was understood by all to be a simple formality).  Plaintiffs made that request to the Borough Council, but after six months of silence, and without any prior notice to Plaintiffs, the Council entered a resolution on June 17, 2021 rejecting the dedication of the Roads.  On August 2, 2021 Plaintiffs commenced this action for, among other things, a determination that the Borough had accepted the dedication of the Roads pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-53. j, and that the Council’s resolution was invalid.  On April 28, 2023, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, holding that the Borough was deemed to have accepted dedication of the Roads pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-53.j, and that the Roads were therefore public streets.  In a well-reasoned and straightforward opinion, the court noted that Plaintiffs had shown that there was no genuine issue of material fact relating to whether the Roads were public streets (a determination that was made particularly easy because the Borough did not submit a single affidavit, nor any other competent evidence, in opposition to the motion).  And, as a matter of law the Roads clearly met all of the elements in favor of a conclusive presumption of dedication under the statute: (i) the Roads were dedicated to the Borough on the subdivision map, (ii) the Roads were inspected and received final approval from the municipal engineer, and (iii) the Borough released Plaintiffs’ performance guarantees after the engineer approved same.  As Plaintiffs show in this brief, the Borough’s appeal of the trial court’s summary judgment ruling consists of endless repetition of the argument that, in spite of the clear language of N.J.S.A. 40:55D-53.j, the Borough can still decline to accept the Roads for any reason whatsoever.