L.S. VS. J.P.(FV-02-002275-13, BERGEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)(RECORD IMPOUNDED), A-2149-15T4

L.S. (plaintiff) and J.P. (defendant) had an extramarital affair of about one year during which they exchanged over 31,000 text messages; relationship became tumultuous.
In early May 2013 L.S. told J.P. she wanted no further contact; J.P. continued persistent calls, texts, and in-person confrontations through May 29, 2013.
L.S. sought police help and obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) on May 29, 2013; a six-day trial followed on the request for a final restraining order (FRO) under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act.
Trial judge found L.S. credible, J.P. not credible, and concluded J.P.’s repetitive, late-hour, alarming communications and conduct showed a purpose to harass and alarm L.S.
Judge entered a final restraining order; on initial appeal the Appellate Division remanded for amplified credibility and intent findings. On remand the judge issued a detailed nineteen-page opinion reaffirming harassment and necessity for a FRO.
On this appeal the Appellate Division affirmed, deferring to the family court’s credibility findings and concluding there was substantial credible evidence supporting harassment and the need for protective relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant committed harassment under N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(a) and (c)	L.S.: repeated, late-hour texts/calls and in-person conduct after she asked him to stop show intent to harass and alarm	J.P.: relationship was ongoing until L.S. filed charges; communications were not intended to harass	Held: Court affirmed harassment finding; repeated, relentless communications and conduct supported an inference of purpose to harass
Whether a Final Restraining Order was necessary under Silver (to prevent further abuse)	L.S.: defendant’s inability to cease contact after repeated requests created immediate danger and risk of renewed harassment	J.P.: FRO not necessary because contacts were not harassing conduct warranting continued restraint	Held: Court affirmed FRO; judge reasonably found FRO necessary given prior history, intensity of conduct, and risk of continued harassment

Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (appellate deference to trial court factfinding, especially credibility)
Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112 (App. Div. 2006) (two‑prong test for domestic violence restraining orders)
J.D. v. M.D.F., 207 N.J. 458 (2011) (need to evaluate statutory factors when issuing restraining orders)
Kanaszka v. Kunen, 313 N.J. Super. 600 (App. Div. 1998) (consider parties’ history in assessing reasonableness of fear)
State v. Hoffman, 149 N.J. 564 (1997) (definition of purposeful conduct under penal code)
State v. Castagna, 387 N.J. Super. 598 (App. Div. 2006) (intent to harass may be inferred from conduct and surrounding circumstances)
State v. Fuchs, 230 N.J. Super. 420 (App. Div. 1989) (mere knowledge that conduct will annoy is insufficient to prove purpose to harass)
Corrente v. Corrente, 281 N.J. Super. 243 (App. Div. 1995) (factors relevant to necessity of restraining orders)
State v. Avena, 281 N.J. Super. 327 (App. Div. 1995) (permissible inferences about intent from surrounding evidence)