SEENA OSNO v. KENNETH KLEIN

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1040-06T21040-06T2

SEENA OSNO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

KENNETH KLEIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________________

 

Submitted May 23, 2007 - Decided

Before Judges Wefing and Parker.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,

Chancery Division - Family Part, Camden

County, No. FV-04-768-07.

Andrew M. Carroll, attorney for appellant.

Archer & Greiner, attorneys for respondent

(Kathleen Pasquarello Stockton, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals from a Final Restraining Order entered against him under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35. After reviewing the record in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we affirm.

The parties were involved in a dating relationship which lasted approximately three years. Plaintiff sought the protection of a restraining order when defendant continued to leave numerous voice mail messages on her telephone in which he told her that he had posted sexually explicit videos of her on the internet. She said that defendant threatened her with ridicule and the loss of her job as an elementary school teacher, with the consequent loss of her pension. At trial, plaintiff presented audiotapes of certain of defendant's voice mail messages. Their content was undeniably crude and offensive and contained threats against her.

At trial, plaintiff was represented by counsel while defendant was not. At the conclusion of plaintiff's testimony, the trial judge, in light of the volatile emotions involved, and the existence of a temporary restraining order, did not allow defendant to cross-examine plaintiff directly. Instead, he told defendant to pose his questions to the judge, who would, in turn, ask plaintiff. The judge adopted this procedure so that he could "make sure the appropriate decorum is maintained."

At the completion of plaintiff's testimony, the judge said to defendant, "All right, tell us your side of the story." The defendant presented a long narrative response in which he did not deny making the calls at issue. He referred to them as "highly immature and venting on my part."

On appeal, defendant raises two issues: that the decision of the trial judge to have defendant pose his questions on cross-examination to the judge "does not comport with the law" and that the judge's factual determinations do not support a conclusion that defendant committed an act of domestic violence.

As to the first, we reject defendant's assertion that his right of cross-examination was unfairly infringed. He does not complain of one instance in which the judge did not pose the question that he wanted to ask. "Supervision and control of all trials are in the hands of the judge." State v. Thornton, 38 N.J. 380, 400 (1962), certif. denied, 374 U.S. 816, 83 S. Ct. 1720, 10 L. Ed. 2d 1039 (1963). We decline to second guess this trial judge, who had the ability to assess the volatile dynamics of the situation before him. We see no abuse of discretion in the technique he adopted in this situation.

As to the second argument, we affirm the final restraining order substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Solomon in his oral opinion of September 20, 2006.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-1040-06T2

RECORD IMPOUNDED

July 10, 2007