MARIA VISO v. CHRISTOPHER VISO

(NOTE: The status of this decision is .)
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4815-07T24815-07T2

MARIA VISO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CHRISTOPHER VISO,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________

 

Argued March 10, 2009 - Decided

Before Judges Fuentes and Chambers.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,

Chancery Division, Family Part, Atlantic

County, Docket No. FV-01-1528-08.

John A. Underwood argued the cause for

appellant (Underwood & Micklin, attorneys;

Mr. Underwood and Paul DePetris, on the brief).

Michael J. Blee argued the cause for

respondent.

PER CURIAM

Defendant Christopher Viso appeals from a final restraining order entered by the Family Part pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35. We affirm.

The parties are divorced. The incident that gave rise to plaintiff's complaint concerns an act of harassment, allegedly committed by defendant when he angrily demanded that plaintiff return a political sign she removed from the lawn of real property jointly owned by the parties. The sign promoted the candidacy of a person who was politically opposed to plaintiff's father.

According to plaintiff, while in the process of putting the sign in her car, defendant's "big blue truck," came toward her at a high rate of speed from the opposite direction, against the lane of traffic on this one way street. Because the street is very narrow, she had "to jump back" in order to avoid the vehicle. She estimated that defendant's truck was about three to four inches away from her when the vehicle came to a stop. This scared her. Defendant came out of the truck "yelling obscenities." Without restating the graphic language defendant allegedly used, we can categorically assert that any reasonable person would find it patently offensive and coarse.

Plaintiff testified that defendant then grabbed the sign from plaintiff's hands, threw it is his truck, and left. She was left physically shaken from the experience. She immediately proceeded to the local police department, where she pulled in right behind defendant. Each party then walked into the police station and reported the incident from their particular perspective. Plaintiff obtained a temporary restraining order against defendant alleging harassment as the predicate offense.

In support of her application for relief under the Act, plaintiff also testified about prior incidents of domestic violence. Specifically, on November 11, 2007, plaintiff discovered that defendant was having an extramarital affair. Plaintiff alleges that defendant struck her across the face, with an open hand, when she confronted him. She testified that "for the first time, I reacted by hitting him back." She did not report this incident to the police because defendant was very remorseful. She also testified concerning other incidents of past violence, in which defendant grabbed her across the neck, preventing her from breathing, kicked her, pulled her hair, and physically prevented her from leaving the marital residence.

Plaintiff also presented the testimony of a friend who witnessed the bruises on her face shortly after the November 11, 2007, incident. This witness also described plaintiff's fragile emotional state at the time.

Defendant testified in his own defense. He also called his girlfriend, who was standing nearby when the incident with the sign occurred. Their account of what took place that day was markedly different than plaintiff's version. Specifically, both witnesses denied that defendant ever used profanity against plaintiff, or that his conduct was in any way menacing or intimidating. In fact, according to defendant, plaintiff was the true aggressor, instigating a confrontation by improperly removing the sign.

Judge Middlesworth was not only the adjudicating officer in this dispute, but presided over the parties' divorce trial, and decided a number of post-judgment motions. He was therefore highly knowledgeable about the lives of these two litigants. After carefully reviewing the evidence presented, Judge Middlesworth issued a well-reasoned oral decision, finding in favor of plaintiff, mostly as a matter of credibility.

On appeal, defendant argues that the record does not support the trial court's findings. Defendant's argument lacks sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). Judge Middlesworth's factual findings are well-supported by the competent evidence, and are therefore binding upon us on appeal. Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 412 (1998). We thus affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Middlesworth in his oral opinion rendered from the bench on April 29, 2008.

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

4

A-4815-07T2

RECORD IMPOUNDED

June 9, 2009