ROBERT BENDER VS. TOWNSHIP OF NORTH BERGEN(DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION)
A-1988-15T4
N.J. Super. App. Div. UAug 25, 2017Background
- Plaintiff filed a TRO on November 20, 2015 alleging defendant harassed him after their April 2015 breakup, including extensive calls and texts.
- Plaintiff claimed defendant placed a flyer on his car and threatened his new girlfriend and family; he believed harassment would continue unless restrained.
- Defendant admitted placing the flyer and texting frequently but claimed the texts were mutual and not coercive; she testified to a pregnancy and attempts to reconcile.
- Plaintiff began a relationship with a new girlfriend in October 2015; conflicts arose after defendant claimed pregnancy in July 2015.
- The Family Part held an evidentiary hearing on December 3, 2015; the court found the alleged harassment supported a predicate act under the PDVA.
- The court issued a final restraining order on December 3, 2015, concluding that a FRO was necessary to protect plaintiff from continued harassment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there predicate harassment evidence? | Harassment evidenced by dozens of texts/calls; defendant's actions fit 2C:33-4a. | Conduct was not purposefully harassing and not sufficiently threatening to justify a FRO. | Yes; evidence supported harassment under 2C:33-4a. |
| Did defendant act with purpose to harass or alarm? | The volume and persistence of contact show purpose to disturb plaintiff. | Texting/pursuit were not intended to alarm or seriously annoy. | Evidence supported a purpose to harass or alarm. |
| Was a final restraining order necessary to protect the victim? | FRO necessary to prevent further abuse given fear of ongoing harassment. | No immediate danger alleged; FRO unnecessary. | Yes; a FRO was warranted to protect plaintiff. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (N.J. 1998) (appellate deference to family court factual findings)
- Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112 (App. Div. 2006) (criteria for predicate acts of domestic violence; factors for relief)
- State v. Hoffman, 149 N.J. 564 (N.J. 1997) (purpose to harass may be inferred from conduct)
- Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474 (N.J. 1974) (special deference to family court factual findings in related disputes)