[brief] **  The review of an order granting summary judgment is plenary and a reviewing court applies the same standard as the motion judge.  *Elazar v. Macrietta Cleaners, Inc.*, 230 N.J. 123, 135-36 (2017).  New Jersey Court Rule 4:46-2(c) provides that summary judgment: ...shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to judgment or order as a matter of law.  An issue of fact is genuine only if, considering the burden of persuasion at trial, the evidence submitted by the parties on the motion, together with all legitimate inferences therefrom favoring the non-moving party, would require submission of the issue to the trier of fact.  [R. 4:46-2(c).]  Summary Judgment is warranted when the evidence presents no genuine issue of fact or when it is so one sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.  *Brill v. Guardian Life Insurance of America*, 142 N.J. 520, 536 (1995).  To avoid summary judgment, the opposing party must come forward with evidence that creates a genuine issue as to a challenged material fact.  *Brill*, 142 N.J. at 529.  The party opposing summary judgment “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts. ”  *Triffin v. Am. Int’l Group, Inc.*, 372 N.J. Super. 517, 523-24 (App. Div. 2004) (citations omitted).  “Competent opposition requires ‘competent evidential material’ beyond mere ‘speculation’ and ‘fanciful arguments. ’”  *Hoffman v. Asseenontv.com, Inc.*, 404 N.J. Super. 415, 426 (App. Div. 2009) (quoting *Merchs. Express Money Order Co. v. Sun Nat’l Bank*, 374 N.J. Super. 556, 563 (App. Div. 2005)).  A court cannot deny a motion for summary judgment merely because the opposing party points to an insubstantial or controverted fact.  *Id.*  The determination that a genuine issue of material fact exists cannot be made based on a mere argument of counsel or the bare assertion of a conclusion opposite to the factual position of the adversary.  *Amabile v. Lerner*, 74 N.J. Super. 43 (App. Div. 1963); *U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Am. Arbitration Assoc.*, 67 N.J. Super. 384, 400 (App. Div. 1961); *Ocean Cape Hotel Corp. v. Masefield Corp.*, 63 N.J. Super. 369 (App. Div. 1960).  When evidence fails to present sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury, or when evidence is so one sided that a party must prevail as a matter of law, summary judgment should be granted.  *Brill*, 142 N.J. at 536.  In this case, [...] wrongly denied the initial motion summary, because Plaintiff failed to file suit against [...] within the two-year statute of limitations period.  However, [...] properly granted [...] summary judgment, as there was no basis for imposing a duty on [...] to maintain the area of the property where the plaintiff allegedly fell.  Under the lease with its landlord, [...] is free of any obligation to maintain the common area, as that is the responsibility of the lessor.  Moreover, tenants of a multi-tenant shopping center have no common law duty to maintain the common areas when the lease delegates responsibility for maintenance of the common area to the landlord.  **ISSUE II: SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPER BECAUSE AMORE’S LEASE DOES NOT PROVIDE A BASIS TO FIND THAT IT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR ICE AND SNOW REMOVAL WHERE THE PLAINTIFF FELL.**