[brief] On appeal, Plaintiffs challenge the trial court’s determination that the Noise Ordinance was determined to be void as both preempted and overbroad.  “A trial court’s interpretations of the law and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to any special deference. ”  Manalapan Realty v. Township Committee, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995).  “We review de novo the issue of whether access to public records under OPRA and the manner of its effectuation are warranted. ”  MAG Entm't, LLC v. Div. of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 375 N.J. Super. 534, 543 (App. Div. 2005).  Of course, while the Appellate Division’s review of questions of law is de novo, it may consider the trial court’s interpretation of law persuasive.  Kernahan v. Home Warranty Admin. of Fla., Inc., 236 N.J. 301, 316 (2019).  On the other hand, the trial court’s findings of facts are subject to deference when supported by credible evidence on the record below.  The Court in Rova Farms provided:  [O]ur courts have held that the findings on which it is based should not be disturbed unless ‘* * * they are so wholly insupportable as to result in a denial of justice,’ and that the appellate court should exercise its original fact finding jurisdiction sparingly and in none but a clear case where there is no doubt about the matter.  That the finding reviewed is based on factual determinations in which matters of credibility are involved is not without significance.  Findings by the trial judge are considered binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial and credible evidence.  It has otherwise been stated that ‘our appellate function is a limited one: we do not disturb the factual findings and legal conclusions of the trial judge unless we are convinced that they are so manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend the interests of justice,’ and the appellate court therefore ponders whether, on the contrary, there is substantial evidence in support of the trial judge’s findings and conclusions.  [Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Insurance Co. of America, 65 N.J. 474, 483-84 (1974)(internal citations omitted). ]  Defendants submit that de novo review of the trial court’s determination is warranted, but argue that finding that the Noise Ordinance is void is persuasive.  The trial court’s findings of fact regarding the potential restrictions the Noise Ordinance would have on ordinary conversations over the minimal distance of 50 feet should be subject to deference.  This matter also involves the review of a municipal ordinance.  Ordinarily, municipal ordinances under court review are presumed valid and reasonable.  State v. Clarksburg Inn, 375 N.J. Super. 624, 632 (App. Div. 2005).  “However, because municipal court proceedings to prosecute violations of ordinances are essentially criminal in nature, penal ordinances must be strictly construed.  A penal ordinance that fails to provide legally fixed standards and adequate guidelines for police and others who enforce the laws violates due process.  While the ordinance or statute does not have to be specific in all regards, it should be ‘afforded flexibility and reasonable brea[d]th,’ given the nature of the problem and the wide range of human conduct. ”  *Id.* at 632 (emphasis added, internal citations omitted).  **POINT I**