RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3479-17T2

IN THE MATTER OF THE

EXPUNGEMENT OF THE 

INVOLUNTARY CIVIL

COMMITMENT RECORDS

OF T.B.

____________________________

Submitted April 30, 2019 – Decided May 23, 2019

Before Judges Hoffman and Enright.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Camden County, Docket No. L-4508-17.

Matthew Blake Lun, attorney for appellant.

Respondents have not filed briefs.

PER CURIAM

T.B. appeals from a February 21, 2018 Law Division order denying his 

petition to expunge records pertaining to his involuntary civil commitment in 

the Ancora Psychiatric Hospital (Ancora). We affirm.

In January 1984, T.B. woke up in a holding cell in New York City, unable 

to remember the circumstances surrounding his detention or even why he was in 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-3479-17T2

the city. Police brought T.B. to a hospital for psychiatric evaluation, which

resulted in his three-week commitment at Ancora. After his discharge, T.B. 

voluntary committed himself to Pennsylvania Hospital for three months to wean 

himself off medication prescribed to him during his stay at Ancora.

T.B. did not experience any psychotic episodes after leaving Pennsylvania 

Hospital. He worked various jobs until he graduated from college in 1997. He 

then began working as an accountant for the State of New Jersey, where he 

remains employed.

In 2017, T.B. filed a petition to expunge his involuntary commitment 

records so he can purchase a gun, work at the Department of Corrections, or 

move to Australia. In support of his petition, T.B. presented illegible medical 

records pertaining to his commitment at Ancora, notes indicating that certain 

records from Ancora and Pennsylvania Hospital no longer exist, affidavits from 

seven individuals attesting to his good standing in the community, a criminal 

background check, and a recent psychological evaluation report.

After conducting a hearing and reviewing the evidence, the motion judge 

could not find T.B. unlikely "to act in a manner dangerous to the public safety" 

and could not conclude that expunging T.B.’s civil commitment records was 

"not contrary to the public interest." N.J.S.A. 30:4-80.9. The judge predicated 
3

A-3479-17T2

these conclusions on her negative assessment of T.B.'s credibility and the 

insufficient evidence surrounding the incident leading to T.B.'s involuntary 

commitment and the involuntary commitment itself. Additionally, T.B.’s 

psychological evaluation report suggested T.B. still experiences mental health 

issues. The judge thus denied T.B.'s petition.

On appeal, T.B. raises four arguments: (1) the motion judge erred in 

concluding T.B. failed to present credible evidence of his mental health history 

and the reasons for his commitment because those records either do not exist or 

are illegible; (2) the denial of his petition renders expungement unavailable to 

all petitioners who cannot obtain records through no fault of their own; (3) the 

trial judge wrongfully viewed his testimony as not credible, and any 

inconsistencies the judge found actually had support in the documentary 

evidence; and (4) the motion judge erred in finding the psychological evaluation 

report failed to show T.B. was not likely to act in a manner dangerous to the 

public safety and failed to show expungement was not contrary to the public 

interest.

We review the trial court's interpretation of the statute governing 

expungement of mental health records de novo. State v. Gandhi, 201 N.J. 161, 

176 (2010). However, we defer to a motion judge's fact findings because he or 
4

A-3479-17T2

she has the "opportunity to hear and see the witnesses and to have the 'feel' of 

the case, which [we] cannot enjoy." In re Civil Commitment of R.F., 217 N.J. 

152, 174 (2014) (quoting State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 161 (1964)). "Assuming 

no error of law, we defer to a trial court's exercise of discretion so long as it was 

not 'clearly unreasonable in the light of the accompanying and surrounding 

circumstances . . . .'" In re LoBasso, 423 N.J. Super. 475, 496 (App. Div. 2012) 

(quoting Smith v. Smith, 17 N.J. Super. 128, 132-33 (App. Div. 1951)).

T.B.'s first two arguments fail because the judge relied upon more than 

simply T.B.'s inability to produce particular records. The judge pointed to T.B.'s 

failure to explain the events leading to his involuntary commitment and his 

inability to recall any of the details surrounding his involuntary commitment, 

such as the doctors who treated him or the medications they prescribed to him. 

T.B. had the opportunity to supplement the missing medical records through his 

testimony and the psychological evaluation report, but still neglected to provide 

this information. Thus, the motion judge could not consider the circumstances 

surrounding the commitment or T.B.'s mental health record.

As to T.B.'s third argument, even assuming the motion judge overstepped 

her bounds in characterizing portions of T.B.'s testimony as inconsistent, the 

judge did not base her credibility assessment solely on these alleged 
5

A-3479-17T2

inconsistencies. The judge discussed how T.B.'s demeanor during his hearing 

led to her conclusion. T.B. spoke flatly, failed to make eye contact, repeated 

himself, talked to himself, showed inappropriate emotion, and rambled 

incoherently. We defer to this determination because the motion judge actually 

observed T.B. deliver his testimony.

Lastly, T.B. focuses on the motion judge’s statement that the 

psychological evaluation report "failed to demonstrate the proper statutory 

standard was met." Even though the report did not state T.B. was not a danger 

to the public and the public interest supported expunging his records, he argues 

these conclusions naturally flow from it. However, the motion judge's issue 

with the report was not that it failed to state the conclusions required by statute 

for expungement, but rather that the evidence within the report did not satisfy

the statutory requirements. The report indicated T.B. repeatedly tried to portray 

himself in a positive light rather than answering the psychologist's questions 

forthrightly. The report also demonstrated that T.B. lacks interpersonal skills, 

has few outlets to cope with stress, possesses a diminished capacity to form close 

relationships, and has a propensity for depression. Based on this evidence, the 

motion judge set forth a reasonable basis for rejecting the psychologist's 

conclusion that T.B. is "psychologically stable and possesses the psychological 
6

A-3479-17T2

characteristics to carry a weapon, work in the federal government, and/or move 

to Australia."

Affirmed.