[brief] 6T, 65:17-22.  As [...] and [...] explained, in 100% affordable housing projects, developers, whether [...], [...], or anyone else, do not need and do not put any money in the development of affordable housing projects.  6T, 61:12-63:1, 64:16-66:24, 79:10-81:1, 81:23-84:25, 124:2-125:20; 1008a-1009a, 18:8-23:2; 1013a, 39:11-40:2; 1013a-1014a, 40:18-43:13; 1015a, 48:11-20; 1015a-1016a, 49:15-50:13.  [...] further explained that developers actually take money out by way of the 15% developer fee.  6T, 66:1-18.  Also, [...] explained that in addition to said 15% developer fee, Plaintiff [...]’s lost profits also include, after the mandatory 15-year hold period, profits generated by the sale of the affordable housing development or refinancing of the balance of the NJHMFA mortgage.  274a; 6T, 66:1-18; 91:18-92:20.  [...]’s expert opinion is not only an expert opinion within a reasonable degree of certainty, but based on the uniquely distinct peculiarities of federal and state laws and regulatory schemes regarding affordable housing developments and the unique realities of financing 100% affordable housing developments by and through the NJHMFA and the 9% tax credit scheme for such developments, which are diametrically opposed to the realities of market rate real estate developments, [...]’s lost profits damages report is far more than just within a reasonable degree of certainty – it is an absolute economic certainty.  6T, 47:18-48:25.  [...] did not “ignore” Plaintiff [...]’s novice status.  Instead, [...] repeatedly explained, with the support of [...]’s testimony, that Plaintiff [...]’s novice status simply did not matter in this unique context.  The Trial Court does not have the expertise in affordable housing developments to refute this fact, and Defendants did not submit any rebuttal expert report to refute this fact.  Rebutting the unrebutted testimonies of [...] and [...] is not “careful scrutiny”, it is a failure to carefully scrutinize and recognize that these expert opinions were wholly uncontested and is an abuse of discretion.  The Court should have accepted [...] and [...]’s unrebutted testimonies establishing that Plaintiff [...]’s novice status should have been deemed irrelevant in this particular, unique, and exceptional context.  Failure to do so was clear abuse of discretion, since the Court ignored and contradicted unrebutted facts.  In this unique case, the “newness” of Plaintiff [...]’s business was irrelevant, as unrebutted expert testimony and the uncontroverted record established that affordable housing developments are often developed by first time developers.  In this unique case, the factor of the “newness” of the business in determining reasonable certainty, whether “preeminent” or just one of the factors to be considered equally, is met on its face, because the unrebutted expert testimony explained that the newness of the business in this unique context is irrelevant.  [...]’s testimony did not “fail” to take into account the newness of Plaintiff [...]’s business; rather, [...] explained that the newness of Plaintiff [...]’s business in this particular enterprise, was immaterial, since any person or entity who has control of the land, new business or otherwise, could have developed the land precisely as [...] and [...] expertly explained.  The Trial Court’s errors of fact, and the Trial Court’s impermissible contesting and rebutting of the uncontroverted facts in the record and established by [...] and [...], were a clear abuse of discretion requiring that the Trial Court’s Order barring [...]’s expert report be reversed.  **POINT II**