[brief] Brown, 111 N.J. at 339-340.  In the same case, [...] similarly opined that all property owners should be liable to innocent pedestrians:  “In each instance, the property owner is better able to control the risk and to distribute the cost of that risk.  As we pointed out in Mirza, prudent property owners can, and generally do, purchase comprehensive or homeowners' liability insurance covering sidewalk accidents.  (Citing Mirza v. Filmore, 92 N.J. 390, 398).  Furthermore, the injured party's need for compensation is no less when he or she walks down the sidewalk alongside one property than it is when he or she walks alongside another.  Finally, it is fair that the pedestrian be allowed to recover no matter who owns the property. ”  Brown, 111 N.J. at 341-342).  We respectfully submit that [...]’s and [...]’s rationale was correct – the law creates unfair, silly results when it creates differently liabilities for different property owners depending on their use.  The property owners are still in a better position than innocent plaintiffs to protect against unreasonable risks of harm.  As we argued in our initial papers, it is clear from a review of the testimony before the Court and the law that the defendant [...] had a duty to safely remediate snow and ice conditions at their property, refrain from creating hazards, and finally, had duty to warn of hazards.  We submit that if the Trial Court had agreed that a property under renovation is more like a commercial property than a private residential premises, the motion would have been defeated, and the plaintiff/appellant would have had her opportunity at justice before a jury.  The property owner’s duty in this case arises out of a fact pattern that is unique, and the nuances of the relationship between the property owner and pedestrian are more like, we submit, the relationship between the commercial property owner and pedestrian than the residential property owner and pedestrian.  Again, we respectfully submit that it is the use of the property at the time of appellant’s injury that should be determinative, and not the eventual use.  The considerations of imposing liability upon a resident do not apply – because the property owner was engaged in improving the property, not living there.  As a matter of simply fairness and equity the appellant should have an opportunity to seek redress for her injuries where a property owner makes a decision to be absent from and engage in construction on what is essentially vacant property for such an extended period of time.  The respondent contends that this case is really like *Briglia v. [...]*, 304 N.J. Super. 77 (App. Div. 1997) a case where a residential property was simply abandoned, unoccupied, and left vacant by its holder in fee simple, and the defendant [...] was a mortgagee in possession, and not a simple property owner.  The building in *Briglia* was vacant, but the property was not under active renovation.  The clear distinction here is that the property in the matter before the court was under renovation – a different circumstance that changed the character of the property at the time of the incident.  Commercial events – construction was ongoing at the time of the accident.  It is the active renovation of the property in the case presently before the Court that changes the character of the property.  **POINT II**