[brief] In particular, [...] argued that the Court misapplied the Statute of Frauds, N.J.S.A. 25:1-15, to find that the Lease and guarantee were terminated.  The Court had ruled that the letter of May 5, 2016 was ineffective to “reinstate” the Lease and guarantee that was terminated by the April 11, 2016 letter because the letter of May 5, 2016 was not a writing signed by the guarantors, citing N.J.S.A. 25:1-15.  [...] argued on reconsideration that N.J.S.A. 25:1-15 did not apply because N.J.S.A. 25:1-15 applies to guarantees and not leases.  The statute that applies to leases is N.J.S.A. 25:1-12 and would not be applicable here because the --- 9 See fn7. lease was for less than three years.  1T5-1 to 17.  Moreover, no party argued N.J.S.A. 25:1-15 applied to this situation.  2T10-24 to 2T11-11.  [...] argued that the May 5, 2016 agreement did not change the guarantee language; the May 5, 2016 agreement rescinded the notice of lease termination and in return modified the lease rental terms by reducing the rent by $3,000.00 for the months of May, June, July, and August of 2016, a $12,000.00 concession given to and accepted by the tenant, [...].  2T8-2 to 2T8-22; 2T9-1 to 2T16-10; 2T20-18 to 2T36-18; 2T39-21 to 2T40-20.  [...] never vacated the premises; [...] occupied the premises continuously from February 20, 2015 until April 19, 2020.  2T40-6 to 10.  As such, [...] argued that the Court expressed its decision that the guarantee was terminated on May 11, 2016, based upon a palpably incorrect or irrational basis, and based on unlitigated or unargued matters. \footnote{No one had argued N.J.S.A. 25:1-15 applied to the facts of the case.}  As such, reconsideration was appropriate and the Court should have corrected its decision.  On the Motion for Reconsideration, the Court ruled that [...] had not raised any new information.  2T42-20 to 21.  The Court ruled that the termination letter terminated the Lease and any discussions thereafter to resurrect anything was as a holdover tenant on different terms, not covered by the guarantors.  2T43-3 to 9.  The Court found that [...] did not meet the reconsideration standard and denied the Motion.  2T43-10 to 2T44-1.  On the Cross Motion to amend the Order of August 1, 2022 as to the amount of damage on May 11, 2016, the Court found that [...]’s claims are limited to possible liability for damage to property to be determined at trial.  2T66-2 to 2T67-17; Pa10.  On October 21, 2022, the Court entered an Order awarding [...] attorney’s fees against [...] in the amount of $37,649.31.  On November 29, 2022, the Court issued its written Order denying the Motion for reconsideration and granted the Cross Motion to amend as described above.  Pa10.  On February 7, 2023, the parties entered into a Final Judgment by Consent.  Pa12-15  Under the Final Judgment by Consent, judgment was entered in favor of [...] and against [...] on his remaining claims for $166,176.47, and all claims against [...], [...] and [...] were dismissed with prejudice.  However, all parties reserved their rights on appeal such that should the Appellate Court rule that Defendants guaranteed the obligations of [...] after May 11, 2016, then Judgment will be entered against [...], [...] and [...] for $100,965.77 and $37,649.31 attorney’s fees, and judgment for indemnity shall be entered for [...] and [...] against [...] in the amount of $100,965.77 and $37,649.31 attorney’s fees, and the judgment for $166,176.47 against [...] and the dismissal of all claims against [...], [...] and [...] will be vacated, and those matters will be remanded to the Trial Court for trial.  LEGAL ARGUMENT I.