A.M. VS. M.K. (FV-21-0400-19, WARREN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-3506-18

A.M. obtained a temporary restraining order (Feb 14, 2019) and after a bench trial the Family Part entered a final restraining order (FRO) on Mar 7, 2019 under the PDVA for harassment (N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(a)).
A.M. and M.K. had an on‑off dating relationship Apr–Dec 2018; contact continued into January 2019 after a breakup.
Between Jan 19–25, 2019 M.K. sent numerous texts, calls, and emails (dozens of contacts, many at late/early hours); A.M. repeatedly told him to "leave me alone."
A.M. testified she was "worried and scared" and recounted prior episodes where M.K. showed up at her home unannounced and banging on the door.
The trial judge found A.M. credible, concluded M.K. committed harassment, and that an FRO was necessary to protect her; the FRO also listed A.M.’s current boyfriend, B.B., as a protected person.
On appeal M.K. challenged sufficiency of the harassment finding and the inclusion of B.B.; the Appellate Division affirmed the FRO as to A.M. but ordered B.B. removed as a protected person.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether M.K.'s repeated communications constituted predicate harassment under the PDVA	A.M.: excessive, late‑hour contacts and prior unannounced visits show a course of conduct intended to alarm	M.K.: contacts lacked violence or threats; insufficient to prove harassment	Held: Yes — repeated, inconvenient communications supported harassment finding
Whether A.M. needed an FRO to prevent further abuse (Silver second prong)	A.M.: fear from obsessive conduct and past unannounced visits created danger to well‑being	M.K.: argued protection unnecessary absent physical threats	Held: Yes — judge credited fear, history, and conduct as justifying FRO to protect from emotional/control harm
Whether B.B. (A.M.'s boyfriend) could be included as a protected person under the FRO	A.M.: B.B. is a person in need of protection as part of her household/relationship context	M.K.: (implicit) disputed need to be restrained as no predicate act toward B.B. was proved	Held: No — facts (Instagram follow, one threatening email) insufficient to show a predicate PDVA offense against B.B.; remand to remove him

Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112 (App. Div. 2006) (two‑part test for FRO: predicate act and need for protection)
Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (standard for appellate review of trial court factual findings)
J.D. v. M.D.F., 207 N.J. 458 (2011) (harassment may mask intent; courts must evaluate totality of circumstances)
State v. Hoffman, 149 N.J. 564 (1997) (purpose to harass may be inferred from evidence and common sense)
H.E.S. v. J.C.S., 175 N.J. 309 (2003) (harassment analysis requires consideration of totality of circumstances)
D.N. v. K.M., 429 N.J. Super. 592 (App. Div. 2013) (deference to Family Part factfinding in domestic‑violence matters)
In re Return of Weapons to J.W.D., 149 N.J. 108 (1997) (credibility findings and appellate deference)