unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend the interests of justice____” Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 484, 323 A.2d 495 (1974) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Judge Winkelstein’s opinions contain a comprehensive discussion of the facts, inferences drawn, and their application to the law. The judge set forth in detail the arguments advanced by plaintiff and his reasons for rejecting each argument, made credibility assessments where necessary, and explained his legal conclusions. We affirm substantially on the basis of the cogent and exhaustive opinions of Judge Winkelstein, which we have determined to be well supported by the evidence and legally unassailable. See ibid, (<HOLDING>). Affirmed. 1 Mikalu, LLC, settled prior to
holding that a reviewing court has the power to reject the findings and conclusions of the trial court where the findings are not supported by the evidence holding that trial courts resolution of disputed facts are conclusive on appeal when supported by substantial evidence holding that the trial courts factual findings related to alimony will be upheld on appeal if supported by   any evidence   holding that the nonbinding findings of an nlrb trial examiner may be considered in a subsequent appeal to establish whether an employees removal was supported by substantial evidence holding that findings by the trial judge are considered binding on appeal when supported by adequate substantial and credible evidence