B.B. v. A.M.-l.
A-3044-23
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.Jun 6, 2025Background
- Plaintiff B.B. and defendant A.M.-L. were in a dating relationship from July 2021 until May 2023.
- After the relationship ended, A.M.-L. persistently contacted B.B. through text messages, emails, gifts, and third parties, despite being repeatedly told to stop.
- Defendant's communications referenced sensitive personal matters (e.g., suicide, family deaths) and were perceived as emotionally manipulative and alarming.
- Plaintiff's distress escalated after defendant used new phone numbers and third-party intermediaries to circumvent blocking.
- Plaintiff obtained a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) after further unwanted contact in January 2024; a trial followed, where B.B. testified as the sole witness.
- The Family Part court granted a Final Restraining Order (FRO) after finding evidence of harassment and a continued need for protection, which A.M.-L. appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did defendant commit harassment? | Defendant's repeated unwanted contacts were harassing and caused fear. | Communications were benign and attempts to reconcile; not harassment. | Court found harassment proven by a preponderance of the evidence. |
| Was a future need for restraints shown? | Defendant's conduct made plaintiff fearful of ongoing contact and escalation. | Plaintiff lacked evidence of ongoing threat or harm; no need for FRO. | Court found future need for restraints due to ongoing uninvited conduct. |
| Was there sufficient credible evidence? | Plaintiff's testimony and documented incidents supported her claims. | Sole reliance on plaintiff’s testimony was insufficient; actions were misconstrued. | Court found plaintiff credible; evidence supported FRO issuance. |
| Should the trial court's findings be disturbed? | Trial judge correctly applied the law and evaluated credibility. | Trial court erred in weighing evidence and applying standards. | Appellate Division deferred to trial court; affirmed the FRO. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (N.J. 1998) (Appellate courts defer to family court credibility determinations)
- Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112 (App. Div. 2006) (Two-prong test for issuing a Final Restraining Order under PDVA)
- J.D. v. M.D.F., 207 N.J. 458 (N.J. 2011) (Purpose and proof standards for harassment under the PDVA)
- H.E.S. v. J.C.S., 175 N.J. 309 (N.J. 2003) (Inferring purpose to harass from totality of the circumstances)
- State v. Hoffman, 149 N.J. 564 (N.J. 1997) (Single communication can constitute harassment under the Act)