C.R. VS. J.R. (FV-20-1234-16, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-4936-15T3

Plaintiff C.R. obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) after events on Feb 29, 2016; a final restraining order (FRO) was entered after trial.
Parties had a long-term on-and-off dating relationship and were still a couple at the time; defendant J.R. testified they planned to apply for a marriage license that day.
Plaintiff testified defendant called her ~50 times, sent >50 texts, came to her workplace, grabbed her neck, pulled her hair, took her purse/jacket, dragged her to his car, hit her head, threw her to the ground, and kicked her; her boss called police.
Defendant denied assaultive conduct, claimed plaintiff struck him, damaged his car mirror, and that he did not hit or throw her down.
Trial judge found plaintiff proved the predicate act of harassment (but not assault), credited plaintiff slightly more, and concluded an FRO was necessary given ongoing harassment and proximity of residences.
Defendant appealed, arguing insufficient proof of harassment, unnecessary FRO, and that trial postponement to allow plaintiff to amend violated his rights; the Appellate Division affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Predicate act: Harassment under N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4	C.R. argued repeated calls/texts and conduct at work constituted harassment	J.R. argued plaintiff did not prove harassment; dispute over who initiated physicality	Court held plaintiff met preponderance standard for harassment; judge found ~50 calls/texts and workplace conduct supported finding
Necessity of FRO (second Silver prong)	FRO necessary due to ongoing harassment, social-media posts, and close proximity of residences	FRO unnecessary because predicate act alone shouldn’t mandate FRO and facts were disputed	Court upheld FRO as within judge's discretion given credible evidence of ongoing harassment and safety concerns
Trial postponement / amendment of complaint	Implicitly: amendment was permissible and did not prejudice plaintiff’s protection	J.R. argued postponement to allow amendment violated his rights	Court rejected defendant's claim as meritless and affirmed (no reversible error shown)
Standard of review / credibility findings on appeal	N/A (court relied on trial findings)	J.R. challenged factual findings and credibility assessments	Appellate review is deferential; trial judge’s credibility and factual findings were supported by adequate, substantial, credible evidence and were upheld

Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112 (App. Div. 2006) (sets two-step analysis: predicate domestic violence act and whether a restraining order is appropriate)
Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (appellate review is deferential to trial court factual and credibility findings)