the facts that are placed forth on this record. While I’m denying your motion to suppress[,] this is in the [c]ourt’s mind a very close call and I invite you on disposition, encourage you on disposition^] to have the [a]ppellate [c]ourt look at it. On appeal, defendant argues that: THE HANDGUN TAKEN FROM DEFENDANT’S BEDROOM WITHOUT A WARRANT OR CONSENT SHOULD BE SUPPRESSED AS THERE WAS NO EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCE[ ] OR COMMUNITY CARETAKING EXCEPTION. The facts upon which the motion judge relied in reaching his decision are not in dispute. Therefore, we address whether the motion judge properly applied the law to those facts. In that regard we owe no special deference to any legal conclusions reached from the established facts. See State v. Brown, 118 N.J. 595, 604, 573 A.2d 886 (1990) (<HOLDING>). The trial court’s application of the law is
holding that the trial court must give due consideration to the applicable law and facts holding that a trial courts ruling on a motion for new trial will be upheld if it is correct on any applicable legal theory even if the court articulated an invalid basis holding that we need not overturn trial court ruling where it did not harm the plaintiff and its resolution would not alter the outcome holding that on appeal a summary judgment ruling will be upheld if it can be sustained on any grounds even if the trial court gave an incorrect reason for its ruling holding that if the trial court acts under a misconception of the applicable law we need not defer to its ruling