the court erred by conflating DOT’s authority to regulate highway access with its power to condemn private property through eminent domain and that defendants’ redress for the driveway closure was limited to the procedures set forth in the Access Act. Because the court mistakenly allowed defendants to present evidence of diminished value due to altered internal traffic circulation, the State maintains that the jury verdict should be vacated and the matter remanded for a new just compensation trial. Consideration of the State’s claims of error in the trial court’s evidentiary ruling and jury charge calls for de novo review. Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Manalapan Twp. Comm., 140 N.J. 366, 378, 658 A.2d 1230 (1995); see also Dempsey v. Alston, 405 N.J.Super. 499, 509, 966 A.2d 1 (App.Div.) (<HOLDING>), certif. denied, 199 N.J. 518, 973 A.2d 386
recognizing that the constitutionality of a statute is a question of law subject to de novo review holding that when trial courts decision turns on question of law appellate review is de novo holding that the appellate standard of review of ineffectiveness claim is de novo holding that an appellate court reviews a trial courts grant of a summary judgment motion de novo because it is a question of law holding that the proper review for the trial courts application of the law is de novo