[brief] Specifically, in contravention to well-settled New Jersey law, the lower court abused its discretion by cutting Landlord’s contractually mandated fee award by nearly 40% based solely on [...]’s personal belief that the rates charged by Landlord’s counsel were “a little high. ”  This arbitrary lowering of Landlord’s fee award is not permitted in this State and should, respectfully, be reversed by this Court.  The opposition interposed by Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Respondent, [...] (“Appellant” or “Tenant”), provides no basis to deny Landlord’s Cross Appeal.  Indeed, despite Tenant’s baseless allegations to the contrary, Landlord’s Fee Application clearly meets the standard established by the New Jersey Supreme Court and should have been granted in its entirety.  Moreover, Tenant’s attempt to avoid its contractual obligation to reimburse Landlord for its legal fees by shifting blame for the Underlying Action to Landlord has no basis in reality.  The Underlying Action was necessitated due to Tenant’s admitted failure to make any payment due and owing under the Lease for five (5) months.  At any point, Tenant had the option to seek dismissal of the Underlying Action by paying the delinquent Rent either to Landlord or the lower court.  Tenant simply refused to do so until entry of the Post Trial Order nearly twenty (20) months after such Rent was due.  Worse yet, after finally depositing the Rent Arrears with the Court, Tenant filed an untimely and meritless seven-hundred (700) page motion for reconsideration of the Post Trial Order, which application, although denied in its entirety by the lower court, caused Landlord to incur additional legal fees and delayed the Underlying Action, and Landlord’s receipt of the Rent Arrears, for an additional two (2) years.  Similarly, Tenant’s argument that Landlord should have avoided this litigation by “automatically offsetting” the Rent Arrears with the unearned 2020 and 2021 Tenant Allowance payments that Tenant would have been entitled to had it not been in monetary default is antithetical to the terms of the Lease and Tenant’s own actions.  Indeed, under Section 4.02 of the Lease, Tenant was never owed the 2020 or 2021 Tenant Allowance payments because it was admittedly in monetary default when such payments came due.  In fact, Tenant’s entire argument that the Lease provides for an “automatic offset” of these amounts is belied by Tenant’s own failure to assess such an offset after Landlord’s alleged underpayment of the 2019 Tenant Allowance.  Clearly, Tenant never believed the Lease provided for an “automatic offset” and only raised such arguments after it realized the consequences of its transparent attempt to avoid paying any Rent to Landlord during the COVID-19 pandemic.  Simply put, Tenant fails to articulate any reason why the Lease, which was negotiated at arm’s length between sophisticated business entities, should be re-written to excuse Tenant from its contractual obligation to reimburse Landlord for its legal fees and costs arising out of the Underlying Action.  Tenant is not entitled to a better deal than it bargained for and Tenant’s continued insistence that Landlord rewrite the Lease for its benefit is what necessitated, and prolonged, the Underlying Action.