Taxation; Whether Plaintiff's Properties had Nominal Value for Tax Purposes Given that they were Burdened by Certain Easements and Restrictions. The plaintiff, Breezy Knoll Association, Inc., is comprised of individuals who own certain homes in Morris. It filed a tax appeal in the Superior Court, challenging the defendant town's valuation for tax purposes of three of its properties, namely, a parking lot, a tennis court and a strip of waterfront property located on Bantam Lake, all of which were used as community property by the plaintiff's members. At trial, the plaintiff's real estate appraiser, Barry Cunningham, testified that the properties' highest and best use was their current use as community property and that they had no market value because no buyer would purchase them given that they were burdened by certain easements and restrictions, and therefore their values were nominal. In justifying the assessments, the town's assistant tax assessor, Barbara Bigos, testified that in light of the easements and restrictions, she assigned to the parking lot and tennis court low site ratings, which led to reductions in their valuations. As for the strip of waterfront property, she stated that she assessed the plaintiff only the front footage along the water even though the land was ten feet deep and that she used the same dollar amount per front foot that she had used for other properties located on the lake. The trial court found Bigos' testimony to be far more comprehensive and persuasive than Cunningham's. It also emphasized that both Bigos and Cunningham agreed that during the relevant time period, the value of the town's real estate, especially its waterfront property, had increased dramatically. It further pointed out that the parking lot and the tennis court were given low site ratings notwithstanding that the plaintiff could sell them without the easements and restrictions if it voted to do so. Based upon the foregoing, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed to satisfy its burden of proving that the town overvalued the properties, and, accordingly, it dismissed the appeal. In the present appeal, the Supreme Court will determine whether the trial court's conclusion was proper.