PAULINE KEHOE v. TERRY L. GERSON

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4054-04T34054-04T3

PAULINE KEHOE,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

TERRY L. GERSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Submitted November 16, 2005 - Decided

Before Judges Conley, Winkelstein and Sabatino.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Atlantic County, FV-01-1131-05C.

Terry L. Gerson, appellant pro se.

Pauline Kehoe, respondent pro se.

PER CURIAM

In this domestic violence action, defendant Terry Gerson appeals from a final restraining order entered by Judge Baker on February 17, 2005, following a hearing on that date. On appeal, defendant fails to list any point headings, but appears to attack various evidence rulings made by the trial judge, as well as the trial judge's ultimate conclusion that defendant committed an act of domestic violence. We have carefully reviewed the record in light of defendant's allegations and the applicable law. We are satisfied that defendant's arguments are without merit and do not warrant extensive discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A),(E). We add only the following.

In arriving at his decision, Judge Baker made the following findings:

I find that the parties did have a dating relationship. That dating relationship continued until the day before Thanksgiving in November of 2004. Since that time, they have not had a dating relationship of any kind whatsoever. I find that, for whatever reason, [defendant] did not want that relationship to end and attempted to win back, if you will, [plaintiff] by sending her flowers, by sending her notes, by sending her gifts, by sending her poems. Those acts in and of themselves are not acts of harassment. . . . I find the plaintiff's sister to be a credible witness. Based upon her testimony, at some point in time the actions of [defendant] changed from that of a jilted lover attempting to have the relationship continue to something a little more serious than that. He started leaving things that were other than poems and gifts and roses that would be associated with a love affair. He intercepted an attendance record of [plaintiff's son]. I simply do not believe [defendant's] testimony that he does not know how he got this. I do not believe that simply one day this appeared on his doorstep. I reject that testimony. I find and I believe that [defendant] either intercepted the mail by going to [plaintiff's] house to get this mail or in some other fashion, using friends of the [plaintiff's] children to obtain this document. If [defendant] innocently obtained this document, he would have not made copies of it which we know he did. He would have folded it up. He would have put it in an envelope. He would have either sent it to [plaintiff]. He would have dropped it off at her house. He would have taken it to her work. He would have gotten in contact with [plaintiff's sister]. He would have said, "Look, somebody gave this to me. It's none of my business. It's your private, personal information. Here it is." But that's not what he did. He went out of his way. He made a copy of it. He sent it to [plaintiff's] 73-year-old mother. This Court finds that there was no reason whatsoever to send it to her other than to attempt to harass [plaintiff] by upsetting her mother by sending an attendance record that indicates that her mother's grandchild had to go to court on three different occasions in September and October of 2004. That wasn't enough for [defendant]. He made another copy, or he used the copy that he received, and returned it to [plaintiff] with a biblical message on it. I find [plaintiff's sister's] testimony to be credible. Her conversations with [defendant] where he left other items on the . . . car of [plaintiff's] child, and normally, leaving something on one person would not necessarily be harassment of another person, but in this situation, taking the totality of the relationship, the apparent anger of [defendant], anger over the fact that apparently [plaintiff] had, in the past, accused his children (sic) of engaging in behavior, and apparently those arguments took place months and months if not a year ago. [Defendant] kept that anger and released that anger by leaving a Bible on . . . her nephew's car and a package of diapers. He denies it. I reject his denial, simply do not believe it. I do believe that he left these items, and he also left the biblical passage. [Plaintiff's sister] testified to that. I believe her testimony, and once again, I do not believe [defendant's] testimony. I am satisfied that [defendant] has engaged in a course of conduct that he knew would cause annoyance or alarm in [plaintiff], that he did it purposely to alarm and seriously annoy her . . . .

The scope of review of a trial court's fact-finding function is limited. That is especially so in a Family Part case. Because of the Family Part's special jurisdiction and expertise in family matters, appellate courts accord deference to a Family Part judge's fact-finding. Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 413 (1998). So long as a trial judge's findings are supported by adequate, substantial, credible evidence, they are binding on appeal. Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974).

First, we find no abuse of discretion in the court's evidentiary rulings. Second, applying the law to the facts, the record contains sufficient credible evidence to support the judge's findings and conclusions. The standard for proving allegations of domestic violence is by a preponderance of the evidence. N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29a. The actions taken by defendant as described by Judge Baker meet that standard, and constitute actionable harassment, N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4a.

We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by the Family Part in its oral decision on February 17, 2005.

 

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-4054-04T3

RECORD IMPOUNDED

November 30, 2005