[brief] In the Superior Officers’ matter, this Court had occasion to construe the MSRA and explained:  The Legislature’s enactment of N.J.S.A. 52:27BBBB-5(3)(i) contemplated precisely the circumstance here where the State may unilaterally modify the terms and conditions of employment in connection with an expired CNA.  Applying the principles of statutory interpretation, the Legislature’s intent by the plain language of this provision is apparent.  The State may ‘unilaterally modify’ any term or condition of employment where the CNA with a municipality in need of stabilization and recovery is expired.  This ‘clear and unambiguous result’ concludes our interpretative process.  Richardson, 192 N.J. at 195.  Thus, MSRA permits the Director to unilaterally modify the contract term for accumulated sick leave upon from Lieutenant to Captain as that CNA expired.  Id., 2022 WL 2352376, at *8.  While not precedential, the Superior Officers’ decision is instructive.  See Sauter v. Colts Neck Volunteer Fire Co. No. 2, 451 N.J. Super 581,600 (App. Div. 2017) (explaining that a court may find “the logic of the opinion persuasive and adopt []” the unpublished, nonbinding opinion).  As in the Superior Officers’ case, the only alleged improper conduct by Defendants is action that is expressly permitted by the MSRA, which was granted by the Legislature to ensure the economic recovery of the City.  Indeed, as Plaintiffs recognize, the City did not have the financial ability to make promotional payments in 2016, and the MSRA was enacted as a mechanism by which the City could avoid precisely that sort of expense.  Plaintiffs’ Complaint does nothing more than complain of conduct that is expressly permitted under the MSRA.  Recognizing the fatal flaw in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, the Superior Court properly concluded: The Court further finds the MSRA specifically vests authority in Defendants to act in this manner.  The Defendants’ decision to modify the 2016 MOAs via the 2017 Notice of Implementation was “reasonable and directly related to stabilizing the finances or assisting with the fiscal rehabilitation and recovery of the municipality in need of stabilization and recovery. ”  N.J.S.A. § 52:27BBBB.  Defendants’ actions are also protected under The Municipal Stabilization and Recovery Act “to the extent any inconsistency exists between the terms of P.L.2016,c.4 (C.52.27BBBB-1 et al) and other applicable laws, the terms of P.L.2016,c.4 (C.52.27BBBB-1 et al) shall prevail. ”  N.J.S.A. § 52:27BBBB-14.  Thus, the claims by Plaintiffs relating to the New Jersey Wage Payment and Collection Law are futile under the plain language of the MSRA.  (Pa000028).  Here, the complained of conduct was both expressly permitted under the MSRA and ultimately ratified by Plaintiffs, and cannot be the basis of Plaintiffs’ claims.  See [...], 2022 WL 2352376, at *8 (affirming dismissal).  Moreover, Plaintiffs’ reference to a “reasonableness” test is misplaced.  The Superior Officers’ decision provides guidance that a “reasonableness” standard should not be read into the MSRA where it is not specifically included, as is the case for modifications to expired collectively negotiated agreements.  See Id. at *7 (noting “N.J.S.A. 34:13A-16(j) plainly contains no reasonableness standard. ”  The same is true with respect to N.J.S.A. 52:27BBBB-5(a)(3)(i)).  Moreover, the Notice of Implementation, which was ratified by the Settlement Agreement, found that the modifications to the Union Members’ “entire compensation” was “necessary to achieve financial stability” for the City.  (Pa000208).  Plaintiffs cannot simply second guess Defendants’ position.  POINT II