C.S. VS. M.A.K.Â (FV-13-1301-16, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-4097-15T4

Parties were long-term dating partners who lived together; plaintiff and her developmentally disabled son lived in defendant's home.
Defendant demanded return of a car he had given plaintiff; after she failed to return it, a heated argument ensued when both arrived home around 4:00 p.m.; defendant had been drinking earlier.
Plaintiff testified defendant grabbed her throat with both hands, causing pain and difficulty breathing, then threw her into furniture; she later discovered a large bruise on her leg. Defendant denied touching her and said she ran out holding her neck and screaming.
A neighbor called police; an officer found plaintiff hysterical and reporting strangulation and neck pain, though he observed no visible neck marks; defendant appeared calm and cooperative to the officer.
The Family Part judge found plaintiff credible, concluded defendant committed an assault under N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1, and entered a final restraining order under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act.
Defendant appealed, arguing plaintiff failed to prove a predicate offense by a preponderance and that lack of visible neck marks and the parties’ separation undercut the need for a restraining order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff proved a predicate offense (assault) by a preponderance	Plaintiff argued her testimony and officer's account of her hysterical state and reported strangulation established assault	Defendant argued there were no physical marks corroborating strangulation and his testimony denied any touching	Court upheld judge's credibility findings and held plaintiff proved assault under N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1 by preponderance
Whether a final restraining order was necessary to protect plaintiff	Plaintiff argued history and the assault supported need for protection	Defendant argued parties had ended relationship and would avoid contact, so an FRO was unnecessary	Court held an FRO was warranted based on the totality of circumstances, history, and risk of further abuse
Whether absence of visible injuries defeats assault finding	Plaintiff argued physical marks are not required; pain and breathing difficulty suffice	Defendant relied on officer's observation of no neck marks to undermine assault claim	Court rejected requirement of visible marks; attempted or inflicted bodily injury (including pain/impairment) suffices
Standard of appellate review of family court findings	Plaintiff relied on trial judge’s credibility determinations	Defendant sought reversal of factual findings	Court applied deferential standard to trial factfinding and affirmed, citing credibility deference in family matters

Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (sets deferential standard for appellate review of family court factfinding)
Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474 (1974) (evidentiary sufficiency standard for appellate review)
Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112 (App. Div. 2006) (describes two-step PDVA analysis: predicate act then necessity of restraining order)
J.D. v. M.D.F., 207 N.J. 458 (2011) (clarifies evaluation for issuance of restraining orders under PDVA)
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. G.M., 198 N.J. 382 (2009) (explains judge’s advantage in assessing witness credibility from live testimony)
State v. Stull, 403 N.J. Super. 501 (App. Div. 2008) (defines bodily injury to include physical pain and supports assault findings absent visible marks)