[brief] SUMMARY  JUDGMENT WAS APPROPRIATELY GRANTED AS THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT  Rule 4:46-2 provides that a court should grant Summary Judgment if “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment or order as a matter of law. ”  See, Brill v. Guardian Life Insurance Company of American, 142 N.J. 520, 528-529 (1995).  Moreover, an issue of fact is only genuine if, considering the burden of persuasion at trial, the evidence submitted by the parties on the motion, together with all legitimate inference therefrom favoring the non-moving party, would require submission of the issue of the trier of fact.  R. 4:46-2.  Brill, 142 N.J. at 538.  The less stringent standard set forth in Brill represented a departure from the prior Summary Judgment standard applied pursuant to Judson v. Peoples Bank and Trust Company of Westfield, 17 N.J. 67, 73-35 (1954).  Under this new standard, a determination whether there exists a “genuine issue” of material fact that precludes summary judgment requires the motion judge to consider whether the competent evidential materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, are sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the non-moving party.  The “judge’s function is not himself [or herself] to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. ”  Liberty, supra, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S. Ct. at 2511, 91 L. Ed. 2d at 212.  Credibility determinations will continue to be made by a jury and not the judge.  If there exists a single, unavoidable resolution of the alleged disputed issue of fact, that issue should be considered insufficient to constitute a “genuine” issue of material fact for purposes of Rule 4:46-2.  Liberty Lobby, supra, 477 U.S. at 250, 105 S. Ct. at 2511, 91 L. Ed. 2d at 213.  The import of our holding is that when the evidence “is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law,” Liberty Lobby, supra, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S. Ct. at 2512, 91 L. Ed. 2d at 214, the trial court should not hesitate to grant summary judgment.  Brill, 142 N.J. at 540.  As the Court stated, “To send a case to trial, knowing that a rational jury can reach but one conclusion is indeed ‘worthless’ and will ‘serve no useful purpose. ’”  Id. At 541.  The parties agreed that the material facts are not in dispute and therefore, the case could be decided as a matter of law.  See Fogel v. S.S.R. Realty Associates, 183 N.J. Super. 303, 443 A.2d 1093 (Ch. Div. 1981), order aff’d, 190 N.J. Super. 47, 461 A.2d 1190 (App. Div. 1983).  Since there is no genuine issue of material fact, it was appropriate for the matter to be resolved on the Cross-Motions for summary judgment that were filed.  See Associates Discount Corp. v. Fidelity Union Trust Co., 111 N.J. Super. 353, 268 A.2d 330, 7 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 1350 (Law Div. 1970).  The issue in dispute is the legal interpretation of those facts and therefore, summary judgment was appropriately granted.  CONCLUSION