[brief] It is routine for even the largest, most experienced developers to create a new entity for each job, for liability or other reasons.  The presence of a new development entity does not diminish the reasonable certainty of lost profit damages.  The Law Division’s decision slices and dices businesses, especially in the construction and real estate development fields, too finely, and will lead to irrational and unrealistic results.  In addition, the Law Division’s decision has serious public policy ramifications – it may shield parties who engage in unscrupulous business practices by stripping victims of their right to recover damages.  Parties will be encouraged to contrive immaterial “differences” between a prior business and a “new” one in order to label a business “new” and thereby defeat an otherwise meritorious damage claim, despite the fact that newness of a business in this particular context is irrelevant.  The Trial Court’s error essentially resurrects the buried new business rule disguised as a reasonable certainty test.  The Trial Court erroneously obsessed on the novice nature of Plaintiffs’ business despite uncontroverted facts in the record and the expert testimony of [...] and [...] establishing that the novice nature of Plaintiffs’ business was irrelevant in this context.  There is no doubt that the Trial Court barred [...]’s expert report for no other reason than the Trial Court’s belief that Plaintiff [...] was engaged in a new business, while completely ignoring the testimonies of [...] and [...] establishing that the newness of a business in low income housing development is completely irrelevant.  In addition, in failing to determine that Plaintiffs’ lost profits could be calculated with reasonable certainty, the Law Division did not recognize that the calculation of damages is a question for the jury and that courts permit considerable speculation by the trier of fact as to damages.  V.A.L. Floors, 355 N.J. Super. at 424.  This legal error calls for reversal of the decision below.  Above all, the Trial Court’s invention of a standard, its invention that the novice status of a business is the “preeminent” factor, its failure to apply the uncontroverted facts in the record and in the testimony of [...] and [...] establishing that the novice status of the business in this context was irrelevant, and its failure to apply the standard as simply set forth by the Supreme Court of New Jersey, was fatal and reversible error.  The Supreme Court in [...] v. Menas, 251 N.J. 556 (2022) stated:  If the trial court determines that Plaintiffs’ lost profits evidence is sufficient to establish their claim for damages with reasonable certainty despite Plaintiffs’ inexperience in developing housing, it should deny Defendants’ motions to bar the evidence and for summary judgment.  [1279a].  Here, since the uncontested testimonies of [...] and [...] established that Plaintiffs’ alleged inexperience in developing housing was irrelevant in the particular context of low income housing development, Plaintiffs’ lost profits evidence should have been deemed sufficient to establish their claim for damages with reasonable certainty.  In other words, the factor of “Plaintiffs’ inexperience in developing housing”, whether “preeminent” or not, was met on its face when [...] and [...] repeatedly established that such inexperience was totally irrelevant in this particular context.  As such, the Trial Court’s error should be reversed and the case should be remanded to the Law Division for trial.  POINT III