Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Thompson v. Zuk

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


June 13, 2007

KRISTA THOMPSON, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
BRANDON ZUK, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Camden County, FV-04-002508-05.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Argued: October 31, 2006

Before Judges Kestin and Lihotz.

This matter arises from a complaint alleging a cause of action under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35. Defendant, Brandon Zuk, appeals from a final restraining order entered on April 25, 2005. He argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction; that its findings and conclusions were not adequately set out; that the court erred in basing its decision on "prior acts not mentioned in the Temporary Restraining Order (and disputed);" and that the findings underlying the decision were based on insufficient and improperly considered evidence.

Having reviewed the record in the light of the written and oral arguments advanced by the parties and prevailing legal standards, we conclude that none of the issues raised has sufficient merit to warrant extended discussion in a written decision. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A),(E).

The assertion of jurisdiction was based upon the conceded dating relationship the parties once had. See N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19d. The history between the parties, including specific events established in the evidence, was not the basis of the final restraining order, but rather was used by the court to develop an understanding of the parties' personal relationship so that an appropriate evaluation of the allegations of the complaint could be made. See N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29a(1). We discern no defect or shortcoming in Judge Famular's conduct of the proceeding or in her decision letter of April 25, 2005, setting forth her findings and conclusions. See R. 1:7-4(a). The facts she found, including the credibility determinations favorable to plaintiff and adverse to defendant, were based upon sufficient credible evidence in the record, and are therefore binding on appeal. See Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-13 (1998).

Affirmed.

20070613

© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.