In Avallone v. Mortimer, 252 N.J.Super. 434, 599 A.2d 1304 (App.Div.1991), the owners of property in Wildwood Crest were sued after the plaintiff tripped and fell on a sidewalk abutting their residence. Id., at 435, 599 A.2d 1304. A portion of that residence was leased as a residential apartment. Id., at 435-36, 599 A.2d 1304. The Court characterized defendant's property as a hybrid property. Id., at 437, 599 A.2d 1304. The Court raised the question, "what should be the result where the owner resides in a two- or three-family residence which abuts the sidewalk in question?" Ibid. The Court then said: The policy considerations which are set forth at length in Stewart, 87 N.J. at 154-157 432 A.2d 881 and Brown, 111 N.J. at 330-35 544 A.2d 842, were substantially linked with a balancing approach which resulted in the Court's conclusion that commercial and other non-residential entities are more readily able to pass on to their users the added costs associated with sidewalk liability. This rationale includes owners of apartment houses and of non-owner-occupied smaller residential buildings operated for revenue purposes. Id. at 437-38, 599 A.2d 1304. In Avallone, the motion judge who granted summary judgment to the property owner concluded that " 'as a matter of law . . . the premises were still residential and not commercial for the purposes of sidewalk responsibility.' " Id. at 436, 599 A.2d 1304. On appeal, we reversed and remanded in order "to permit exploration of the predominance of use." Id. at 439, 599 A.2d 1304. The Court explained: Until and unless the Legislature or the Supreme Court abolishes the residential exception . . . we hold that the same applicable considerations of balance and ability to pass along cost require that the residential sidewalk exception be continued for owner-occupants whose residency is established to be the predominant use.Id. at 438, 599 A.2d 1304. The Court concluded that "the Gilhooly v. Zeta Psi Fraternity approach to hybrid residential/non-residential properties partially misinterprets the Brown v. St. Venantius School rationale." Id., at 437, 599 A.2d 1304. The Court stated: As we read Brown, its weighing of policy considerations was ultimately resolved entirely on the grounds that there simply was no residential use of the property, and that its charitable use was not crucial in balancing the interests of the injured party against that of the abutting owner except as to a beneficiary of the charity. Ibid.