43 A.3d 1248
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2012Background
- Plaintiff sought a final restraining order under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act after a violent assault during a group trip to Israel with about forty people, including defendant.
- The parties had not met before the trip; the incident occurred after a group function when plaintiff was attacked by defendant in her room area.
- The Jerusalem District Court found that defendant attempted to kiss her, then viciously assaulted her, causing serious injuries; defendant pled guilty and was sentenced.
- The trial court relied on plaintiff’s testimony to find a dating relationship existed, applying the Andrews six-factor test.
- The Appellate Division reversed, holding the evidence did not establish a dating relationship and remanded to dismiss the complaint.
- The court discussed the need to prove a dating relationship with sufficient frequency/duration beyond a single date under the Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence supports a dating relationship under the Act | S.K. contends there was a date and thus a dating relationship | J.H. contends there was no dating relationship beyond a single occasion | No dating relationship; reverse and dismiss |
Key Cases Cited
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (1998) (liberal construction of the Act to favor victims; define 'dating relationship' reasonably)
- J.S. v. J.F., 410 N.J. Super. 611 (2009) (fact-specific Andrews framework applied to dating relationships)
- Andrews v. Rutherford, 363 N.J. Super. 252 (Ch. Div. 2003) (six-factor test for dating relationship; adoption for this case)
- Mani v. Mani, 183 N.J. 70 (2005) (legislative intent inferred from lack of contrary reaction to Andrews)