RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0856-19T1

S.S.,1

Plaintiff-Respondent, 

v.

L.L.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_____________________________

Argued November 17, 2020 – Decided

Before Judges Yannotti and Mawla. 

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County, 

Docket No. FV-02-0109-20.

Amanda F. Wolf argued the cause for appellant (Wolf 

Law, PC, attorneys; Robert W. Ruggieri, of counsel and 

on the brief; Amanda F. Wolf, on the brief).

Ira C. Kaplan argued the cause for respondent.

PER CURIAM

1 We use initials to protect the identities of the parties, pursuant to Rule 1:38-

3(c)(12).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

December 7, 2020
2

A-0856-19T1

Defendant L.L. appeals from an October 11, 2019 final restraining order 

(FRO) entered in favor of plaintiff S.S. pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic 

Violence Act (PDVA), N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35. We affirm.

Both parties are senior citizens; plaintiff was eighty-nine years of age and 

defendant seventy-eight when the FRO entered. Plaintiff suffered from various 

ailments and either utilized a walker or a wheelchair for mobility, whereas 

defendant enjoyed good health, ran, and played tennis. The parties had a two 

year relationship before deciding in June 2017, to live together in plaintiff's 

West Palm Beach, Florida home. However, one month after defendant moved 

in, plaintiff evicted him because he verbally abused her, and his conduct made 

her afraid. Defendant returned to reside with plaintiff in October 2017, as both 

sheltered together during a hurricane, but the relationship did not get better.

According to plaintiff's domestic violence complaint, filed on July 12, 

2019, plaintiff's daughter flew to Florida to pack plaintiff's belongings and bring 

plaintiff to New Jersey because defendant's abusive conduct continued and 

despite having his own unit in the same development, he refused to vacate 

plaintiff's residence. On June 25, the day before plaintiff and her daughter were 

due to leave for New Jersey, 
3

A-0856-19T1

[defendant] woke [plaintiff] and began screaming at . . . 

[her]. . . . [He] was hostile and aggressive and got in 

[plaintiff's] face with closed fists and continued this all 

night[, defendant] called plaintiff profanities and 

degraded her and put her in fear . . . . While trying to 

leave the residence . . . [defendant] came out . . . and 

yelled profanities at . . . plaintiff[. Plaintiff] and her 

daughter . . . returned around 11:30 PM so [plaintiff] 

could use her lymphedema machine which pumps fluid 

out of her legs[.] While [plaintiff] was using the 

machine . . . [defendant] returned and was screaming 

again at . . . [plaintiff.] . . . A neighbor called the police 

and [the] Palm Beach County Sheriff's Dep[artment] 

arrived and took an incident report. [Plaintiff] and her 

daughter went to a neighbor's residence to stay and 

while walking away [defendant] began screaming at 

them and degrading [plaintiff] about being incontinent 

and embarrassing her in front of the neighbors[.] 

The complaint described the prior history of domestic violence, including 

the August 2017 incident which caused plaintiff to evict defendant from her 

home and other "episodes of rage and screaming . . . [during which defendant] 

would raise his fists to [plaintiff]" which scared her. The complaint alleged 

plaintiff wanted to "come back to [New Jersey] because [defendant] was 

continually mentally and verbally abusive toward her [and although defendant] 

does not have any ownership of the home [he] would not leave so [plaintiff] had 

to leave to protect herself." Plaintiff sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) 

on grounds of harassment and terroristic threats.
4

A-0856-19T1

The court granted plaintiff a TRO on July 12. The TRO granted plaintiff 

exclusive possession of her Florida residence. Defendant was served with the 

TRO on July 15 and removed from plaintiff's residence. Self-represented, he

filed a motion to modify the TRO provision regarding possession of the 

residence, which the trial judge heard on July 18. 

During the July 18 proceeding, the trial judge asked defendant if he had a 

copy of the TRO. Defendant acknowledged service of the TRO, stating it was 

in his possession "for the past two days" and explained "[t]he nature of the 

application is not to rescind the entire [TRO]. . . . I realize that there is a final 

order proceeding coming up on the 22nd. It's to at least make a couple of 

amendments to the [TRO] . . . about the plaintiff's property . . . it's causing severe 

hardship here." The judge granted defendant's motion and vacated the provision 

granting plaintiff exclusive possession of the Florida residence because plaintiff 

was now in New Jersey. 

During the hearing, plaintiff's daughter informed the judge defendant had 

violated the TRO by contacting the independent living facility in New Jersey 

where plaintiff was residing in an effort to reach plaintiff. The daughter advised 

that River Edge Police notified her the Palm Beach County Sheriff inadvertently 

provided defendant with plaintiff's address when plaintiff was served with the 
5

A-0856-19T1

TRO and defendant used the address to call the residential facility. The trial 

judge therefore amended the TRO to include contempt.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge asked defendant if he planned 

to attend the FRO hearing, which was scheduled for July 22. Defendant advised 

"I'm working on it." Defendant asked the trial judge to expedite delivery of the 

amended TRO to the Palm Beach County Sheriff and gave the court his email 

address to serve him with the amended TRO. 

Defendant retained an attorney who filed a motion to dismiss the amended 

TRO or, in the alternative, to transfer venue to Florida. Defendant substituted 

counsel who filed an August 2019 certification from defendant explaining that 

his motion was really one to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. He 

certified he had not resided in New Jersey since 1995, "when [he] moved to 

Pennsylvania." He argued his only contact with New Jersey was "phone calls 

to [his] children and grandchildren that live in . . . New Jersey." He denied 

having any contact with plaintiff since June 25. Notably, defendant certified as 

follows: "I was initially served by the Palm Beach County Sheriff on or about 

July 15, 2019, with an envelope containing a single piece of paper which said 

'Domestic Violence Restraining Order' but had no names on the paper, just a 
6

A-0856-19T1

single address."2 Defendant claimed he later "received service of the [TRO] on 

or about . . . July 22 . . . via certified mail." 

The trial judge heard defendant's motion in August 2019. Plaintiff 

appeared with her counsel, and defendant's attorney also appeared but only for 

the purpose of contesting jurisdiction. Citing Shah v. Shah3, defendant's counsel 

argued that because the court lacked personal jurisdiction it could not enter an

FRO. Plaintiff's counsel argued the court had jurisdiction by virtue of 

defendant's contacts with New Jersey after being served with the TRO, resulting 

in the contempt. 

The trial judge found the court had personal jurisdiction because 

after being served with . . . official paperwork from the 

State of New Jersey . . . [defendant] without any 

provocation by [p]laintiff call[ed] into where . . . 

[p]laintiff is residing[.] I do find that his conduct in 

connection with the State [was] such that he could 

reasonably anticipate being [haled] into court after 

receiving those papers especially.

The FRO hearing occurred in October 2019. Plaintiff testified and also 

adduced testimony from: her daughter; River Edge Borough Police officer 

Joseph Zemaites; West Palm Beach County Sheriff's deputy Lisa Benson and 

2 The sheet of paper contained a portion of plaintiff's New Jersey address.

3 184 N.J. 125 (2005).
7

A-0856-19T1

Sergeant Ryan Mugridge; Gina Principato, the manager of the independent 

residential facility where plaintiff was residing in New Jersey, and Principato's 

assistant Maryanne Bova. Neither defendant nor his attorney appeared for trial.

The trial judge made detailed findings and concluded all of the witnesses 

were credible. Officer Benson testified she served defendant with the TRO on 

July 15. She described the interaction as follows: 

[I m]ade contact with him, advised him . . . why I was 

there, showed . . . [him] five pieces of paper and one 

that I keep that I sign saying I delivered it. Went over 

the nature of it. 

He advised me that he knew exactly what it was about, 

that he used to be an attorney . . . . I explained to him 

that this is why I'm here, I need him to understand the 

document and sign, which he did. He collected the 

other pieces of paper. I took the one that I needed[.] 

Sergeant Mugridge testified he accompanied Officer Benson to serve 

defendant with the TRO. He recounted defendant 

was opposed to being served [with] the whole packet

. . . . I explained to him if he was opposed to it or has 

any questions concerning the document to seek legal 

counsel. 

. . . .

He said something along the lines of he was an attorney 

or he was handling it and that that was it. But he 

received the entire packet and then Deputy Benson and 

I left.
8

A-0856-19T1

Plaintiff testified consistent with the allegations set forth in the amended 

TRO and the history of domestic violence. She noted she did not tell defendant 

where she was staying in New Jersey. She explained she needed an FRO 

because she feared further abuse from defendant who was younger and stronger 

than her. Plaintiff explained in detail why she was afraid of defendant because 

he had already violated the TRO and "[h]e doesn't care about the law at all. He 

thinks he is the law." She stated: "I'm eighty-nine going on ninety years old and 

I just want to be left alone." 

Plaintiff's daughter corroborated plaintiff's testimony regarding the 

predicate acts which occurred in Florida. She also testified that, once in New 

Jersey, plaintiff was hospitalized because of "cellulitis of the legs" and while 

she was in the hospital with plaintiff, they learned of defendant's attempts to 

contact plaintiff at the residential facility in New Jersey. She testified her 

mother was worried and scared defendant would find her. 

Bova testified she received a call on July 16, from a man who asked 

if I had a resident by the name of [S.S.] So, I said yes, 

we do. He said what type of facility is this. I said it's 

independent living. He said could you connect me to 

[S.S.'s] room then. I said no, this is an independent 

[living facility]. And then he asked me for her phone 

number and I said we don't have a resident's phone 
9

A-0856-19T1

number here because it's independent living in their 

room. 

Bova testified although the caller did not identify himself and the caller ID log 

was "unknown", the log did record the telephone number, which Bova recited. 

Plaintiff testified the number belonged to defendant. 

Principato testified she received a call from an unknown caller on July 17 

inquiring about plaintiff. The caller, also a male, told Principato he was a friend 

of plaintiff and asked if she was living there. Principato declined to answer the 

question and asked the caller for his name "several times" but "[h]e wouldn't tell 

me." She testified the caller said "I'm a friend of [plaintiff's], we've been living 

together for a long time as if we're married. I've been her primary caregiver. 

I've been taking care of her. . . . Her daughter . . . kidnapped her and took her 

away from . . . our home in Florida[.]" Principato testified she wrote down the 

telephone number of the caller, which was the same as the number Bova had, 

except for the last figure. 

The judge found plaintiff proved defendant committed contempt pursuant 

to N.J.S.A. 2C:29-9(b), by knowingly and intentionally violating the TRO and 

harassment under N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(c). Relating to the issues raised on this 

appeal, the judge credited Sergeant Mugridge and Officer Benson's testimony

that defendant was served with the entire TRO and "told both officers . . . that 
10 A-0856-19T1

he had been an attorney so he understood what was happening." The judge noted 

she again listened to defendant's testimony from the July 18 motion and noted 

he "indicated that he had been served with a restraining order for the past two 

days . . . he understood that there was a [FRO] hearing scheduled" which 

corroborated the officers' testimony. 

The judge concluded defendant was the person who called the independent 

living facility because he was served with the sheet containing plaintiff's 

confidential address, which was the same as plaintiff's independent living 

facility address. She found the unknown caller's telephone number was the same 

as defendant's and reasoned the slightly different number Principato provided 

was "merely inverted . . . when she recorded [the numbers]" and concluded 

defendant was the caller because he identified himself as plaintiff's friend, 

primary caregiver, and alleged plaintiff's daughter had kidnapped her. 

The judge found defendant "was well aware that he was subject to 

restraints here in New Jersey and had been served with a copy of the restraining 

order when he made those telephone calls on July 16th and 17th to the staff at 

[plaintiff's] residence." She further found as follows:

It was only after learning where [plaintiff] was that 

[defendant] reached out. 

. . . . 
11 A-0856-19T1

The nature of those phone calls are, I find, incredibly 

concerning. They are . . . veiled in the idea that he's 

doing this in [plaintiff's] best interest when [plaintiff,] 

who can speak for herself, is saying to leave me alone. 

I find that those phone calls . . . after having been served 

with the restraining order convey on this [c]ourt 

personal jurisdiction over [defendant].

. . . . 

After he was served [defendant] solicited this [c]ourt to 

amend the [TRO]. He filed an application. He 

convened the tribunal, so to speak, and called . . . 

plaintiff and the counsel on his application into court 

on the 18th. He made an application which I granted. 

I think he subjected himself to the personal jurisdiction 

of the court at that time.

The trial court's findings of fact are binding on appeal "if supported by 

adequate, substantial, credible evidence." Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 412 

(1998) (citing Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Invs. Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 484 

(1974)). An appellate court may not set aside a trial court's factual findings 

unless convinced the findings "are so manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent 

with the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend the 

interests of justice." Ibid. (quoting Rova Farms, 65 N.J. at 484).

Moreover, an appellate court should defer to fact-finding by the Family 

Part because of that court's "special expertise in the field of domestic relations." 

Ibid. (citing Brennan v. Orban, 145 N.J. 282, 300-01 (1996)). However, we owe 
12 A-0856-19T1

no deference to the trial court's ruling on an issue of law, which we review de 

novo. Manalapan Realty, LP v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 

(1995).

On appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred in finding personal 

jurisdiction because the harassment and terroristic threats alleged in the TRO 

occurred in Florida and defendant lacked minimum contacts in order for New 

Jersey to exercise jurisdiction over him. Defendant argues the amended TRO 

was also deficient because it was based on unsworn statements of plaintiff's 

daughter and hearsay. He claims there is no evidence his calls were made with 

an intent to harass plaintiff or communicate terroristic threats. Defendant argues 

even if minimum contacts exist, it is unreasonable to expect him to defend the 

matter in New Jersey because the alleged domestic violence occurred in Florida 

and the witnesses are located there.

In Shah, our Supreme Court held our courts may issue a TRO where a

victim of domestic violence flees into New Jersey as a result of domestic 

violence which occurred outside the state. 184 N.J. at 128. However, where no 

personal jurisdiction can be exercised over a defendant, our courts may not enter 

an FRO or grant relief that compels the out-of-state defendant to affirmatively 

act. Id. at 128-29. 
13 A-0856-19T1

The Court explained

[t]he analytical stricture [to determined personal 

jurisdiction] is straightforward. "The first step is to 

determine whether defendants have had the requisite 

minimum contacts with New Jersey. We evaluate the 

minimum contacts of a defendant on a case-by-case 

basis." . . . In so doing, we

focus on "the relationship among the 

defendant, the forum, and the litigation." 

The "minimum contacts" requirement is 

satisfied so long as the contacts resulted 

from the defendant's purposeful conduct 

and not the unilateral activities of the 

plaintiff.

"This 'purposeful availment' requirement 

ensures that a defendant will not be haled 

into a jurisdiction solely as a result of 

'random,' 'fortuitous,' or 'attenuated' 

contacts." The question is whether "the 

defendant's conduct and connection with 

the forum State are such that he should 

reasonably anticipate being haled into 

court there."

Once an examination of the defendant's minimum 

contacts with the State is complete, the policy question 

whether "the assertion of jurisdiction affect[s] 

traditional notions of fair play and substantial 

justice[,]" . . . must be addressed. That requires the 

consideration of a number of factors that comprise "the 

flip-side of the purposeful availment doctrine, [that is] 

whether the offending party could reasonably anticipate 

that the forum state would have a substantial interest in 

vindicating the personal rights of the injured party."
14 A-0856-19T1

[Id. at 138-39 (citations omitted).]

With this as the backdrop, we turn to defendant's arguments. At the outset, 

we reject the assertion the court lacked jurisdiction when it entered the initial 

TRO. Defendant waived this argument when he filed a motion to amend the 

TRO, appeared on July 18, and advised the court he was not seeking to dismiss 

the TRO but instead to amend it to grant him access to the residence, and did 

not contest the court's jurisdiction. 

We also reject defendant's argument the court lacked personal jurisdiction 

under the amended TRO. Section 4.5.3 of the State of New Jersey Domestic 

Violence Procedures Manual promulgated by the Supreme Court in conjunction 

with the Office of the Attorney General, Department of Law and Public Safety

provides guidance regarding the taking of a domestic violence complaint and 

states: "At the initial hearing, the court . . . shall administer an oath to the 

applicant and take testimony regarding (a) the alleged domestic violence; . . . 

and (f) make general inquiry as to all relief requested by the applicant to 

determine the appropriateness of same."

4

 Notably, elsewhere in the manual at 

4 https://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/courts/assets/family/dvprcman.pdf.
15 A-0856-19T1

section 4.1.3 it states in taking an application for a TRO, the court "shall . . . 

amend the complaint to conform to the testimony, where appropriate[.]"5

It is true the trial judge did not take sworn testimony from plaintiff's 

daughter in order to amend the TRO to add contempt. However, a careful 

reading of the July 18 transcript reveals plaintiff, who was sworn at the outset 

of the proceedings, testified to defendant's contempt when she stated: "I don't 

know whether I'm safe or not because he has threatened me. He has called the 

police department, my daughter's police department, the police department 

where I currently reside. To inform them . . . that he's been extricated from his 

home." It was only later during the proceeding when plaintiff's daughter 

clarified that River Edge Police had called plaintiff to explain defendant had 

called the independent living facility that the judge realized plaintiff's earlier 

testimony was about defendant's contempt of the TRO and amended the TRO

accordingly. Indeed, the judge briefly addressed the contempt by asking: 

"[Defendant] did not contact [plaintiff]; is that correct?" To which plaintiff 

5

Ibid. Although section 4.1.3 addresses the municipal court procedure for 

hearing a TRO application we fail to see how the Family Part would be deprived 

of amending the complaint to conform to the testimony provided considering 

that the power to order such amendments, even at trial, is to be "liberally 

exercised." Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, Cmt. R. 4:9-2 

(2021).
16 A-0856-19T1

responded "No." Therefore, the amended TRO was entered with the judge 

having relied on plaintiff's sworn testimony. 

Challenging the addition of contempt to the TRO, defendant next argues 

as follows: 

Without any information about the substance of the 

calls, there is . . . simply [no] basis for asserting that the 

calls involved harassment or terroristic threats or any 

of the other sorts of communications that constitute 

domestic violence. In particular, there was absolutely 

nothing to suggest that the communications were even 

directed at [p]laintiff. 

Contempt of a PDVA restraining order, N.J.S.A. 2C:29-9(b), is an 

independent predicate offense. N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(a)(17). The contempt statute 

states: "a person is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree if that person purposely 

or knowingly violates any provision in an order entered under the provisions of 

the [PDVA] . . ." N.J.S.A. 2C:29-9(b)(1). Contempt is not a lesser included 

offense of either harassment, N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(c) or terroristic threats, N.J.S.A. 

2C:12-3, which have entirely different statutory elements. For these reasons, 

we reject defendant's argument the trial judge was required to find the telephone 

calls made to the independent residential facility contained threats or were 

harassing in order to amend the TRO to include contempt. 
17 A-0856-19T1

The court could assert personal jurisdiction over defendant based on 

plaintiff's testimony that defendant had called the residential facility in violation 

of the TRO. Furthermore, the judge's findings at the FRO hearing regarding 

defendant's contempt of the TRO are unassailable. Sergeant Mugridge and 

Officer Benson's testimony proved defendant was served with the entire TRO 

and defendant's testimony during the July 18 hearing further corroborated the 

officers' representations defendant had the TRO. Bova and Principato's 

testimony proved by a preponderance of the evidence that it was defendant who 

called the residential facility in violation of the TRO. Therefore, minimum 

contacts were established because defendant was aware he could not contact 

plaintiff, yet purposefully called the New Jersey residential facility in an attempt 

to reach her. Defendant's conduct was not "random", "fortuitous", or 

"attenuated" and he could reasonably expect to be "haled" into a New Jersey 

court for violating the TRO. 

Finally, we reject defendant's argument that it would be a burden to defend 

plaintiff's claims in New Jersey. As the transcript of the FRO hearing readily 

proves, the judge was able to take telephonic testimony from the Florida officers 

and assess their credibility, and we see no reason why the judge could not do the 
18 A-0856-19T1

same with defendant, had he chosen to testify.6 Moreover, defendant was able 

to retain a New Jersey attorney to zealously represent his interests in the 

preliminary proceedings before the trial court and on this appeal. Considering 

what plaintiff endured fleeing to safety in New Jersey and that in enacting the 

PDVA "the intent of the Legislature [was] to assure the victims of domestic 

violence the maximum protection from abuse the law can provide[,]" N.J.S.A. 

2C:25-18, we are convinced New Jersey was the proper forum to vindicate her 

rights as a victim of domestic violence.

Affirmed. 

6 See also Pathri v. Kakarlamath, 462 N.J. Super. 208, 212, 216-21 (App. Div. 

2020) (noting there is no prohibition on remote witness testimony under our 

Rules of Court and outlining the means by which try such a case.)