JOANNE YOUNGJU PARK v. CHANG DO PARK

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0393-05T10393-05T1

JOANNE YOUNGJU PARK,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CHANG DO PARK,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________________

 

Submitted March 1, 2006 - Decided March 16, 2006

Before Judges Conley and Weissbard.

On appeal from Superior Court of New

Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part,

Bergen County, Docket No. FV-02-503-06.

Chang Do Park, appellant pro se.

Sangwook Moh, attorney for respondent.

PER CURIAM

Defendant Chang Do Park appeals from the entry of a final restraining order (FRO) pursuant to the Domestic Violence Act (DVA), N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -33, in favor of plaintiff Joanne Youngju Park.

At the outset, we note the total inadequacy of the Statement of Facts in defendant's appellate brief. In utter violation of the Rules, defendant has provided not a single citation to the record in that Statement. R. 2:6-2(4). Indeed, in the argument portion of his brief, defendant likewise makes factual assertions without reference to the record. We realize that defendant has appealed pro se, and while we are inclined to view some deficiencies on pro se briefs with indulgence, a pro se litigant is nevertheless required to substantially comply with the applicable Rules. Defendant has not done so.

Defendant argues that there are "no grounds to grant [a] final restraining order" in that plaintiff "committed perjury and gave false testimony" to obtain the Order motivated by a desire to "control [defendant] and obtain [a] divorce." However, in rendering his oral opinion, Judge Langan found the unrebutted testimony of plaintiff to be credible. The record clearly supports that finding to which we must give deference, inasmuch as the judge actually heard and observed the witness. Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411-12 (1998). Given his factual findings, the judge's conclusion that defendant violated the DVA is unassailable.

Having reviewed defendant's arguments in light of the record and applicable law, we find them to be without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A) and (E). We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Langan in his oral decision of September 9, 2005.

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-0393-05T1

RECORD IMPOUNDED

March 16, 2006