SHERRIE E. COLEMAN v. MITZABETH GARAY
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2363-07T22363-07T2
SHERRIE E. COLEMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MITZABETH GARAY,
Defendant-Respondent.
_____________________________
Submitted September 9, 2008 - Decided
Before Judges Collester and Grall.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Ocean County,
Docket No. FV-15-0824-08.
Sherrie E. Coleman, appellant pro se.
Respondent has not filed a brief.
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Sherrie E. Coleman appeals from a judgment denying the entry of a final restraining order (FRO) against defendant pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (DVA), N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35, and from the dismissal of plaintiff's complaint and temporary restraining order (TRO). Plaintiff and defendant had a twelve-year relationship and lived together until June 2007. Subsequently, both plaintiff and defendant filed DVA complaints against the other and obtained a TRO pending a hearing on the FRO before Judge Francis R. Hodgson, Jr., which concluded on November 2, 2007. The judge granted an FRO to defendant, finding that plaintiff made harassing phone calls to defendant in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4, an offense to substantiate a restraining order under N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19. However, he denied plaintiff's application for an FRO, dismissed her complaint and dissolved the TRO against defendant.
In the course of his opinion, Judge Hodgson made detailed factual and credibility findings in favor of defendant and stated that plaintiff's testimony was not credible. After review of the record, we determine that the findings of Judge Hodgson were reached on substantial credible evidence in the record, giving due regard to the superior ability of the court to judge credibility of the witnesses. State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 471 (1999); R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A) and (E).
Affirmed.
(continued)
(continued)
2
A-2363-07T2
RECORD IMPOUNDED
March 13, 2009
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.