[brief] With regard to the Plaintiffs’ federal and state civil rights claims and the claims premised upon the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”), the Certification of [...], P.P. (“Bernard Cert.”), filed in support of Plaintiffs’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, which was denied by the Trial Court by Order and Opinion dated March 10, 2023 (M718), and is the subject of Plaintiffs’ cross-appeal, makes a number of salient points.  First, he notes that [...] is unique in that it is the home of so many age-restricted communities.  As a result, the 2016-2020 American Community Survey (“ACS”) reveals that 37.6 percent of Monroe’s population is 65 or over.  To put this into context, the 2016-2020 ACS reveals that only 16.2 percent of the State’s population and only 15.0 percent of Middlesex County’s population is 65 or over.  Of course, one of the characteristics of age-restricted communities is the absence of school age children, since children under the age of 19 are not permitted in such communities.  Ra165.  Mr. Bernard further noted, id., that the 2016-2020 ACS reveals that Monroe has a much more homogenous housing stock than the State and Middlesex County.  Indeed, when comparing the ACS data, it is apparent that the Township has a disproportionately high percentage of single family (attached and detached) housing.  Single family homes are usually the most expensive type of housing and the least likely to be rented.  Thus, they are the least likely form of housing to be occupied by low and moderate income households.  The percentage of the housing stock recorded by the Census Bureau as single-family housing (detached and attached) is as follows:  New Jersey: 63.1%  Middlesex County: 64%  [...]: 87.1%  Further, African American and Hispanic households are a disproportionately high percentage of the low and moderate income population.  This is illustrated by the 2016-2020 ACS data that provides the following median income data:  | Race/Ethnicity | New Jersey | Middlesex County | |----------------|------------|------------------| | White | $91,555 | $84,926 | | Black | $55,453 | $79,063 | | Hispanic | $60,352 | $65,771 |  Given the very high percentage of single-family homes in [...], it would be expected that the Township would have a disproportionately low percentage of African American and Hispanic residents.  The data provided in the 2016 – 2020 ACS bear this out, confirming the following racial breakdown in the State, the County, and the Township:  New Jersey: 12.4% African American 21.6%  Hispanic Middlesex County: 9.1% African American 22.4%  Hispanic  [...]: 3.4%  African American 5.7%  Hispanic  Id.  Mr. Bernard further confirmed that, in contrast to the lack of multi-family housing in Monroe, Plaintiffs’ inclusionary development is designed to provide affordable multi-family housing, including low and moderate income housing, that will be more readily available to the minority population than the housing that has previously been allowed by the Township’s zoning policies.  Further, Plaintiffs propose housing for families with children, not the age restricted housing that is so prevalent in the Township, all of which is relevant to Plaintiffs’ civil rights and NJLAD claims.  Id.  For the following reasons, when the applicable law is applied to the facts established in this matter, it becomes clear that the Trial Court Orders from which Defendants appeal were providently issued, with the only error made below being the Trial Court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims for damages and attorney’s fees.