RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-5061-15T1 M.Y.,1 Plaintiff-Respondent, v. G.C., Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Submitted September 20, 2017 – Decided October 30, 2017 Before Judges Haas and Rothstadt. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County, Docket No. FV-02-1627-16. Matthew Jeon, attorney for appellant. E. Sandra Choi, attorney for respondent. PER CURIAM Defendant G. C. appeals from the Family Part's June 7, 2016 final restraining order ("FRO") that the court entered against him 1 Pursuant to Rule 1:38-3(d)(9), we use initials to protect the parties' confidentiality. pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act ("PDVA"), N.J.S.A 2C:25-17 to -35, and in favor of his former wife, plaintiff M. Y. The trial judge found defendant committed the predicate act of harassment, N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4, by engaging in a pattern of conduct against plaintiff with the intention of annoying and alarming her, and that an FRO was needed to protect plaintiff. On appeal, defendant argues the trial court failed to properly apply the analysis required under Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112 (App. Div. 2006). We disagree and affirm. The facts developed at the final hearing in this matter are summarized as follows. Plaintiff and defendant were married in October 2011 and divorced almost five years later. Soon after plaintiff filed for divorce in March 2016, she also filed a complaint seeking a restraining order against defendant. That complaint alleged defendant harassed plaintiff by repeatedly calling her and texting her "threatening and harassing" messages beginning on March 3, 2016 and continuing for approximately four days. At the ensuing final hearing, it was undisputed by the parties that there was no previous history of domestic violence or harassment by defendant before these incidents. Defendant also conceded that he sent all of the subject text messages and that he repeatedly tried to communicate with plaintiff. According to 2 A-5061-15T1 defendant, the communications were only made in an attempt to discuss with plaintiff her reasons for seeking the divorce and so that he could get closure. Plaintiff testified that over the course of four days after she filed for divorce, defendant sent her hundreds of text messages throughout the day and night. Initially, defendant's texts focused on the divorce and defendant wanting to arrange a meeting to discuss the divorce. When plaintiff expressed reluctance to meet, defendant began texting plaintiff nude photos of herself that defendant had stored on his phone, as well as photos of his bloody stools. He threatened to disclose the photos to plaintiff's family and her fellow church members, and made threatening statements about causing harm to plaintiff's family. In addition to the photos, defendant sent plaintiff texts about her immigration ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals