of the decision in Zive is not to require that every plaintiff be afforded a jury trial. Rather, the focus of the inquiry, presuming that the employer offers a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action, moves to the pretext analysis. Id. at 455, 867 A.2d 1133. In that regard, as the Court reminded us: [I]f the employer proffers a non-discriminatory reason, plaintiff does not qualify for a jury trial unless he or she can “point to some evidence, direct or circumstantial, from which a factfinder could reasonably either (1) disbelieve the employer’s a er. 24, 40, 744 A.2d 670 (App.Div.2000)(affirming summary judgment in spite of erroneous reasoning of motion judge); GNOC, Corp. v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, 328 N.J.Super. 467, 474, 746 A.2d 466 (App.Div.2000)(<HOLDING>), aff'd, 167 N.J. 62, 768 A.2d 1051 (2001). We
holding that the judge did not abuse his discretion but applied an incorrect standard holding that even when based on erroneous reasoning a conclusion or decision of a trial court will generally be affirmed if the evidence or an alternative theory supports it holding that an order will be affirmed when correct even if the reasons given by the trial judge were incorrect holding that the decision of the bia will not be affirmed by this court unless the reasons for such a finding are made clear holding that if a decision below is correct it will not be disturbed on appeal even though the lower court relied upon wrong reasons