[brief] (Issue not Raised Below).  In reviewing a trial court’s decision on summary judgment, an appellate court reviews the matter with the same standard applied by the trial court.  Henry v. N.J. Dep’t of Human Servs., 204 N.J. 320, 330 (2010).  “[T]he appellate court should first decide whether there was a genuine issue of material fact, and if none exists, then decide whether the trial court’s ruling on the law was correct. ”  Id.  In Brill v. The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, 142 N.J. 520 (1995), the New Jersey Supreme Court held:  [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 fact finder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the nonmoving party…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.  The import of our holding is that when the evidence ‘is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law,’ the trial court should not hesitate to grant summary judgment.  [142 N.J. at 540 (citing Liberty Lobby v. Anderson, 477 U.S. 242, 250-52 (1986)).]  The thrust of the Brill decision was to encourage trial courts not to refrain from granting summary judgment when proper circumstances present themselves.  Id. at 541.  While the New Jersey Supreme Court recognized the importance of not shutting a deserving litigant from trial, it stressed that it was just as important that the court not “allow harassment of an equally deserving suitor for immediate relief by a long and worthless trial. ”  Id. (quoting Judson, 17 N.J. at 77).  To send a case to trial, knowing that a rational jury can reach but one conclusion, would be “worthless” and “will serve no useful purpose. ”  Brill, 142 N.J. at 541.  Although moving papers supporting a summary judgment motion are closely scrutinized with all inferences of doubt drawn against the moving party, once a movant demonstrates a prima facie right to summary judgment, the burden shifts to the non-moving party.  R. 4:46-5.  The non-moving party must counter the summary judgment motion with competent evidential material to show a genuine factual dispute.  Robbins v. Jersey Township, 23 N.J. 229, 241 (1957).  R. 4:46-5 provides:  When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this Rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the pleadings, but must respond by affidavits…setting forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.  Thus, the opponent of a summary judgment motion must show controverting facts, not merely bare assertions, representations or allegations in pleadings without affidavit or other evidentiary support.  The opponent must clearly establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.  The failure to discharge this duty entitles the movant to summary judgment.  Judson v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co., 17 N.J. 67, 74-75 (1954).  POINT IV