C.R. VS. G.G. (FV-16-0501-16, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) ( 2017 )

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2519-15T2
C.R.,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
G.G.,
Defendant-Appellant.
__________________________________________________
Submitted May 16, 2017 – Decided June 2, 2017
Before Judges Fisher and Vernoia.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part,
Passaic County, Docket No. FV-16-0501-16.
Paul E. Fernandez, attorney for appellant
(G.G., on the pro se brief).
Respondent has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff C.R. commenced this action, pursuant to the
Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (the Act), N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17
to -35, alleging his former girlfriend – defendant G.G. – sent him
numerous text messages and made numerous telephone calls to him
of a harassing nature. Following a trial on October 6, 2015, at
which both self-represented parties testified, the judge found
plaintiff and his version of the events to be credible and entered
a final restraining order. With counsel, defendant unsuccessfully
moved for reconsideration.
Defendant appeals, arguing:
I. THE COURT OMITTED MAKING A FINDING AS TO
WHETHER A FINAL RESTRAINING ORDER WAS REQUIRED
FOR THE PLAINTIFF'S PROTECTION OR TO PREVENT
FUTURE ABUSE; AND THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT SUCH A FINDING.
II. BY CUTTING OFF THE UNREPRESENTED
DEFENDANT'S TESTIMONY; FAILING TO EXAMINE HER
DOCUMENTARY PROOFS; AND FAILING TO CONDUCT
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE PLAINTIFF (WHEN IT
DID CONDUCT CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE
DEFENDANT), THE COURT VIOLATED THE DEFENDANT'S
DUE PROCESS RIGHTS TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AND
CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESS AGAINST HER.
We find insufficient merit in these arguments to warrant further
discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We add only
a few brief comments.
We start by recognizing that defendant does not challenge the
judge's finding that she was in a relationship with plaintiff that
would bring the dispute within the Act, see N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(d),
or the judge's finding that a predicate act, as defined in N.J.S.A.
2C:25-19(a), occurred. She argues only that: (1) the judge did not
determine, as required by Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112,
126-27 (App. Div. 2006), that a final restraining order was
necessary to protect plaintiff from future domestic violence; and
2 A-2519-15T2
(2) her right to cross-examine, or to testify on her own behalf,
was inhibited by the judge's conducting of the trial, see J.D. v.
M.D.F., 207 N.J. 458, 481 (2011); Peterson v. Peterson, 374 N.J.
Super. 116, 124-25 (App. Div. 2005).
As for the first issue, the judge did not, at the conclusion
of the trial, express whether there was a need for a final
restraining order to prevent future harassment, as required by
Silver. Although it seems to us that finding was implicit in the
judge's decision, as we have observed, defendant moved for
reconsideration. In ruling on that motion, the judge assumed, as
defendant argued, that she had overlooked that aspect, and she
then added the necessary finding. The judge stated that defendant's
conduct had affected plaintiff's children, as well as the mother
of those children. And the judge relied on: plaintiff's testimony
"that this was not an isolated incident"; that defendant had not
shown "remorse"; and that "further harassment" "seemed extremely
likely." These findings comport with the requirements of Silver
and are entitled to our deference. See Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J.
394, 412 (1998).
We also reject defendant's argument that she was deprived of
the right of cross-examination. The record reveals that the judge
offered defendant that opportunity. And the record demonstrates
that, when offered, defendant chose not to ask questions but opted,
3 A-2519-15T2
instead, to begin her testimony. The judge attempted to guide or
assist defendant but eventually recognized defendant only wanted
to tell her side of the story. The judge handled the situation
properly. Domestic violence trials are often, as we have said,
"brief, loosely-conducted affairs." N.B. v. S.K., 435 N.J. Super.
298, 308 n.12 (App. Div. 2014). The judge offered defendant the
opportunity to cross-examine, conducted her own examination of
both witnesses, and showed great patience with defendant and her
frequent interruptions of the proceedings. Defendant received all
the process due under the circumstances.
Affirmed.
4 A-2519-15T2