ALYSON GALDERISI v. BRANDON BERINATO

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0253-05T50253-05T5

ALYSON GALDERISI,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

BRANDON BERINATO,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________

 

Argued: May 2, 2006 - Decided May 10, 2006

Before Judges Kestin and R. B. Coleman.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Passaic County, FV-16-000304-06.

Joseph S. Trapanese argued the cause for appellant (Trapanese & Trapanese, attorneys; Mr. Trapanese, on the brief).

John Fiorello argued the cause for respondent (Feldman & Fiorello, attorneys; Mr. Fiorello, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from a final restraining order under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35 (the Act). He argues that the trial court's findings were not grounded on adequate, credible and substantial evidence; that the conclusions reached were not consistent with the findings made; and that the basis of the trial court's ruling was otherwise flawed. Defendant also asserts that he did not commit criminal mischief as charged and found; and that he is entitled to a new trial because of "various evidentiary and due process errors" on the part of the trial court. Our analysis of the record in the light of the written and oral arguments advanced by the parties and prevailing legal standards discloses that none of the issues raised justifies our intervention.

The trial judge's findings and conclusions were well supported by the evidence and his credibility determinations. Accordingly, those findings and conclusions are binding on appeal. See Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-13 (1998); Bonnco Petrol, Inc. v. Epstein, 115 N.J. 599, 607 (1989). The trial court was well-warranted in rejecting defendant's contention that his actions were accidental, and in finding that defendant had committed an act of criminal mischief.

We reject defendant's contention on appeal, citing Cesare, supra, 154 N.J. at 405, that proof of a charged act satisfying the standards of the Act is, alone, not sufficient as a basis for invoking the protections of the Act, and that additional proof is required of "the entire relationship between the parties[.]" Ibid. Taken in its proper context, that statement by the Court in Cesare was designed to provide trial courts with an authoritative basis for gaining a perspective on the real relational qualities underlying a charged act of domestic violence that might have ambiguous qualities, not as a ground for excusing violent conduct clearly covered by the express provisions of the Act. Considering the circumstances presented at trial, we also discern no evidentiary flaws or due process violations in the trial court proceeding as conducted.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-0253-05T5

RECORD IMPOUNDED

May 10, 2006