no suggestion that the region to be considered is or should be confined by our State’s borders, id. at 329, 3 A.3d 1268 (Skillman, P.J.A.D., dissenting) (citing Saddle Brook, supra, 156 N.J. at 597, 722 A.2d 530), he criticized the majority for relying on Justice Blackmun’s concurrence when the United States Supreme Court’s majority had not suggested such a limitation on the relevant market area, id. at 330-32, 3 A.3d 1268. II. This matter comes to us as an appeal as of right, arising only through the dissent in the Appellate Division. R. 2:2-l(a)(2). As such, our review is confined to the issue which was the subject of the dissent, ibid., no other matter having been brought to us through a petition for certification, see State v. Allegro, 193 N.J. 352, 371 n. 9, 939 A.2d 754 (2008) (<HOLDING>); accord, Aversano v. Palisades Interstate
holding that a notice of appeal based on a dissent in the appellate division preserves for review only those issues on which the dissent was filed and certification must be sought separately as to all other issues holding that disputed issues of fact cannot be resolved based on affidavits and must be decided based on evidentiary hearings the only admissible procedure for resolving such issues holding that issues must be briefed to be preserved on appeal holding that appellant did not limit his issues on appeal by gratuitously listing only some of those issues in his notice of appeal holding that issues must be raised and ruled upon in the trial court to be preserved for appellate review