back to the date the sheriff's sale occurred, an event about which all parties admitted defendant was unaware. 3 Again, defendant was "locked-out" on September 8, 2005, and she sought to vacate the sheriff's sale on December 13, 2005, three months and five days later. 4 Defendant's petition for certification presented three questions, two that implicate constitutional considerations, and one that raises a straightforward question of law: whether the courts below "improperly applied laches to bar the defendant relief, particularly where both courts did not find prejudice to the plaintiff.” Because we do not address constitutional questions when a narrower, non-constitutional result is available, Randolph Town Ctr., L.P. v. County of Morris, 186 N.J. 78, 80, 891 A.2d 1202 (2006) (<HOLDING>); O'Keefe v. Passaic Valley Water Comm’n, 132
holding that the jurisdictional reach under section 955a is strictly a question of law holding it is a question of fact holding that the district courts denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility is a factual question and should be accorded great deference and should not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous holding that courts should not reach a constitutional question unless its resolution is imperative to the disposition of litigation holding that the question of whether an existing constitutional right is infringed is strictly a question of law