Appellate Court Upholds Final Restraining Order Denial in Harassment Case
Docket No. A-3757-22
Decided October 3, 2024
Submitted by New Jersey Domestic Violence Lawyer, Jeffrey Hark.
In a recent published opinion, defendant appealed from an order denying his motion to dismiss a final restraining order (FRO) issued under the Protection of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35.
In 2019, plaintiff was granted a final restraining order. The predicate act of domestic violence was harassment. The judge indicated that defendant had engaged in a course of conduct or repeatedly committed acts with the purpose to alarm or seriously annoy the plaintiff by parking his vehicle in close proximity to the plaintiff’s home, continuously being in the vicinity of the plaintiff’s home, and other places where she went in other incidents. Within two months after the FRO was issued, defendant filed for an application to modify the FRO. This application was denied.
Defendant next filed an application to vacate the FRO in September 2022. This motion was denied by the trial court because defendant failed to attend a psychological evaluation as required under the FRO, and after the court’s consideration of the Carfagno factors. Defendant then filed another application to vacate the FRO in December 2022. In support of this motion, defendant provided a psychological evaluation that stated he was “not in need of psychotherapy or any other mental health treatment services.” This application was denied as well. The trial court credited plaintiff’s testimony, “questioned” defendant’s credibility, and found plaintiff was acting in good faith in opposing the dismissal. The trial judge also found that the plaintiff continued to fear defendant and determined that defendant did not make a compelling argument as to why the FRO should be dismissed. Defendant subsequently appealed.
On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dissolve the FRO because his motion, in-court testimony, and application of the Carfagno factors weighed in favor of granting the motion. Defendant further contended that the trial judge did not specifically address each of the Carfagno factors, which was required.
Ultimately, the Appellate Court of New Jersey affirmed the trial court’s decision. The court opined that the trial judge considered, in detail, the Carfagno factors in reaching her conclusion. The court also determined that the trial judge’s findings of fact are fully supported in the record and her legal analysis is indisputable.
At Hark & Hark, we are experienced attorneys who represent clients in Superior Court for issues like the previously discussed case pertaining to motions to dissolve final restraining orders. We work hard to ensure that our clients receive exceptional representation in order for them to receive the most favorable outcome in their case as a result.
We offer payment plan options to clients financially incapable of providing full payment upfront. If you are facing a similar situation to that of the defendant in this case, please call us to discuss the matter. At Hark & Hark, we represent clients for any case in any county in New Jersey including Atlantic County, Bergen County, Burlington County, Camden County, Cape May County, Cumberland County, Essex County, Gloucester County, Hudson County, Hunterdon County, Mercer County, Middlesex County, Monmouth County, Morris County, Ocean County, Passaic County, Salem County, Somerset County, Sussex County, Union County, and Warren County and any town including Audubon, Gloucester City, Oaklyn, Audubon Park, Gloucester Township, Pennsauken, Barrington, Haddon Heights, Pine Hill, Bellmawr, Haddon Township, Pine Valley, Berlin Borough, Haddonfield, Runnemede, Berlin Township, Hi-Nella, Somerdale, Brooklawn, Laurel Springs, Stratford, Camden, Lawnside, Voorhees, Cherry Hill, Lindenwold, Waterford, Chesilhurst, Magnolia, Winslow, Clementon, Merchantville, Woodlynne, Collingswood, Mt. Ephraim, and Gibbsboro.
