made on a showing of the relevant factors. [Brady, supra, 152 N.J. at 210-11, 704 A.2d 547 (quoting George Harms Constr. Co. v. New Jersey Turnpike Auth., 137 N.J. 8, 27, 644 A.2d 76 (1994)).] Additionally, as we recently stated in State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 471, 724 A.2d 234 (1999), an appellate court may not “engage in an independent assessment of the evidence as if it were the court of first instance.” We frequently have observed that findings of fact made by a trial judge “are considered binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial and credible evidence,” Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 484, 323 A.2d 495 (1974), and that standard is equally applicable to reviews of administrative decisions, see Close, supra, 44 N.J. at 599, 210 A.2d 753 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, if in reviewing an agency
holding that in its review of the irs exercise of discretion the court is limited to a review of the administrative record holding that the convenience of the witnesses has less relevance where the case involved judicial review of an administrative decision holding that scope of review of administrative decision is the same as that for an appeal in any nonjury case holding an appellate decision becomes the law of the case and is controlling on both the trial court and on any further appeals in the same case holding that the proper scope of the review under rule 307 is to review any prior error that bears directly upon the question of whether the order on appeal was proper