RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0882-19 C.E.B., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. C.S.B., Defendant-Appellant. _______________________ Argued December 15, 2021 – Decided March 14, 2022 Before Judges Gilson and Gooden Brown. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Hudson County, Docket No. FV-09-0262-20. Dominick Succardi argued the cause for appellant (The Law Offices of Dominick Succardi, LLC, attorneys; Dominick Succardi, on the briefs). Tamara L. Loatman-Clark argued the cause for respondent. PER CURIAM Defendant appeals from a final restraining order (FRO) entered under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (the Act), N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35, based on a predicate act of harassment, N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4. We affirm because the trial court's factual findings are supported by substantial credible evidence, and it correctly applied the law. I. We discern the facts from the record developed at a five-day trial conducted on June 21, 2019, August 21, 2019, August 23, 2019, September 9, 2019, and September 13, 2019. Both parties were represented by counsel and the court heard testimony from five witnesses: plaintiff; defendant; T.J., an employee of the Essex County Domestic Violence Intake Unit and acquaintance of defendant; M.C., who previously dated defendant; and J.E., a friend of defendant.1 The parties had been in a dating relationship for several years and they had a child together. The child was born in 2010. The parties ended their relationship in 2012 but continued to deal with each other concerning custody and parenting time issues related to their child. 1 We use initials to protect the confidentiality of the participants in these proceedings. R. 1:38-3(d)(10). A-0882-19 2 On May 2, 2019, the parties appeared in court for a child-support hearing. Following the hearing, they exchanged a series of text messages. Defendant's messages became progressively more aggressive and included numerous graphic profanities and emojis of a middle finger. 2 On May 7, 2019, plaintiff applied for and obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) based on harassment as reflected in the text messages. The TRO also noted a history of domestic violence, including physical assaults and abuse. Defendant filed a counter TRO alleging harassment. Both parties' TROs were filed in Essex County and there were several initial court hearings in Essex County. The matter was later transferred to Hudson County for trial after plaintiff announced that she intended to call T.J. as a witness. At trial, plaintiff testified about the parties' relationship and several instances of domestic violence. She described an incident in 2008 when defendant slapped her and forced her to have sex with him. She also described an incident that occurred at a tattoo parlor. She explained that she had gone to 2 An "emoji" is …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals