P.M. v. K.M.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0745-05T30745-05T3

P.M.,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

K.M.,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________

 

Submitted March 15, 2006 - Decided May 18, 2006

Before Judges Wefing, Fuentes and Graves.

On appeal from Superior Court of New

Jersey, Chancery Division - Family Part,

Sussex County, No. FV-19-000463-05.

Heymann & Fletcher, attorneys for appellant

(Stephen K. Fletcher and Danielle H. Bohlen,

on the brief).

Gruber, Colabella, Liuzza, Kutyla &

Ullmann, attorneys for respondent (John D. Williams,

on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant K.M. appeals from a final restraining order entered under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35, and a subsequent order awarding plaintiff counsel fees. After reviewing the record in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we affirm.

The parties were married in July 1986. Unfortunately, their relationship was contentious, and in April 2005, while the parties were engaged in divorce proceedings, each obtained a temporary restraining order against the other. The trial court conducted a hearing on May 12, 2005, at which both parties testified, as well as Sergeant Robert Osborn of the Newton Police Department, who responded to the scene. At the conclusion of that hearing, the trial court rendered an oral decision in which it set forth its reasons for dismissing defendant's domestic violence complaint against plaintiff and entering a final restraining order against her. On appeal, defendant does not contest the dismissal of her complaint but contends the trial court erred when it entered a final restraining order against her.

We do not find it necessary for purposes of this opinion to recite the parties' conflicting versions of what transpired between them on the date in question. Within its oral opinion, the trial court clearly accepted as credible the testimony of plaintiff P.M. and rejected that of defendant. The trial court's findings and credibility assessments are amply supported by the record and are binding upon us. Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 413 (1998) (noting that "[b]ecause of the family courts' special jurisdiction and expertise in family matters, appellate courts should accord deference to family court factfinding"); State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 474 (1999). We have reviewed the record and can perceive no basis to interfere with the final restraining order entered by the trial court. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A).

Defendant's challenge to the award of counsel fees is premised upon her view that she did not commit an act of domestic violence. She makes no complaint as to the amount of fees involved or that the amount was unreasonable. In light of our conclusion affirming the trial court's entry of a final restraining order against her, defendant's argument on counsel fees is unavailing. Grandovic v. Labrie, 348 N.J. Super. 193, 197 (App. Div. 2002); Schmidt v. Schmidt, 262 N.J. Super. 451, 454-55 (Ch. Div. 1992).

The orders under review are affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-0745-05T3

RECORD IMPOUNDED

May 18, 2006