NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted August 14, 2013
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County, Docket No. FV-02-2221-12.
Angela Rodriguez, attorney for appellant.
Respondent has not filed a brief.
Before Judges Koblitz and Accurso.
Defendant D.F. appeals from the final restraining order (FRO) entered against him on June 4, 2012. We affirm.
In the domestic violence complaint filed by plaintiff A.L.P. on May 5, 2012 and amended May 17, 2012 to expand the details of the prior history of violence, plaintiff alleged that defendant, her former boyfriend, called her at 11:38 p.m. on May 4 and harassed her by cursing at her on the phone and telling her to look outside her window where he was parked. She also alleged that he had assaulted her and committed criminal trespass in March of that year by calling her at 3:00 a.m., intoxicated, seeking the keys to her car to retrieve items he had in the trunk. He then forced himself into her house, pushed and shoved plaintiff, looking for a man he thought was in the house. He threw plaintiff out of his way, damaging the doorknob on her daughter's bedroom door.
Plaintiff testified that after the March incident, her thirteen-year-old daughter told her that defendant had sexually assaulted her. Plaintiff reported the incident and criminal charges were brought against defendant. Both parties then filed various criminal complaints against the other.
At trial, plaintiff and the police officer who took her complaint testified. Defendant, his cousin and a friend testified on defendant's behalf.
Judge Mizdol made the following findings:
With respect to the alleged incident of March 21st through March 22nd, I am satisfied that the defendant did appear at the plaintiff's home seeking to speak with her. I am satisfied, based upon plaintiff's testimony, that he came into the second floor of her apartment, that he then went through, shoving her to the side, and went into the apartment, searching through the house, believing that there was another [man] there, that, in fact, [he] went into . . . plaintiff's daughter's room to search through closets, bathrooms, shower stalls, et cetera to determine if someone was present in the apartment.
I am less sure of the incident that is alleged to have occurred on May 4, but I am satisfied that [the officer] did make copies or photos of restricted calls that came to the plaintiff. This occurred after defendant would have already been charged with an alleged sexual assault upon her daughter. And whether it was he or others at his behest ...