J-S53031-18

____________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 T.W., JR., O/B/O, T.W., III AND T.L.W., MINOR CHILDREN

Appellee
v. M.T.M. Appellant : : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1050 EDA 2018 Appeal from the Order Entered March 22, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Domestic Relations at No(s): C
-48-PF-2017-1104 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OTT, J., and PLATT*, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED NOVEMBER 20, 2018 Appellant, M.T.M., appeals from the order entered in the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas, which denied reconsideration of the order granting the Protection From Abuse (“PFA”) petitions of Appellee, T.W., Jr. (“Father”), filed against Appellant on behalf of T.W., III, and T.L.W. (“Children”), the minor children of Father and M.D. (“Mother”). We affirm. In its opinions, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no need to restate them. Appellant raises the following issues for our review: WAS THE ISSUE OF CONSOLIDATION PROPERLY PRESERVED WHERE THE ISSUE WAS RAISED BY THE [TRIAL] COURT SUA SPONTE AND [MOTHER] REQUESTED THAT THE MATTERS BE HEARD SEPARATELY?J-S53031-18

- 2 - DID THE TRIAL COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY CONSOLIDATING TWO PROTECTION FROM ABUSE CASES WHERE THE CONSOLIDATION PREJUDICED [APPELLANT]? DID THE TRIAL COURT COMMIT AN ERROR OF LAW BY ADMITTING [FATHER]’S OFFER OF [APPELLANT]’s STATEMENTS? (Appellant’s Brief at 6
-7). The relevant scope and standard of review are as follows: “In the context of a PFA order, we review the trial court’s legal conclusions for an error of law or abuse of discretion.” Stamus v. Dutcavich, 938 A.2d 1098, 1100 (Pa.Super. 2007) (quoting Drew v. Drew, 870 A.2d 377, 378 (Pa.Super. 2005)). Additionally, “a trial court has broad discretion with regard to the admissibility of evidence, and is not required to exclude all evidence that may be detrimental to a party’s case.” Schuenemann v. Dreemz, LLC, 34 A.3d 94, 102 (Pa.Super. 2011). “To constitute reversible error, an evidentiary ruling must not only be erroneous, but also harmful or [unduly] prejudicial to the complaining party.” Ettinger v. Triangle-Pacific Corp., 799 A.2d 95, 110 (Pa.Super. 2002), appeal denied , 572 Pa. 742, 815 A.2d 1042 (2003). After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well
-reasoned opinions of the Honorable Michael J. Koury, Jr., we conclude Appellant’s issues merit no relief. The trial court opinions comprehensively discuss and properly dispose of the questions presented. (SeeTrial Court Opinion, filed March 22, 2018, at 9
-12; Trial CourtJ-S53031-18

- 3 -

Opinion, filed April 3, 2018, at 1) (finding: (1-2) Appellant failed to object to consolidation of PFA petitions before trial court, so Appellant has waived his challenge to consolidation; even if Appellant had not waived his consolidation claim, he would be entitled to no relief; based upon allegations in PFA petitions, court concluded both petitions stemmed from same purported incidents and same evidence was necessary in both cases; (3) Appellant failed to make timely and specific objection to hearsay testimony before trial court; initially, Appellant objected to Father’s presentation of Mother’s statements, which court determined were admissible as statements of party opponent; Appellant made no additional objection to admissibility of Mother’s statements; Appellant alsofailed to object to multiple levels of hearsay Father presented in his testimony; further, Appellant failed to object to testimony of S.R., Children’s maternal grandmother, who testified to additional statements of Mother)
. The record supports the trial court’s rationale, and we see no reason to disturb it. Accordingly, we affirm based on the trial court’s opinions. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 11/20/18Circulated 11/05/2018 02:3:1)1M 

### IN-THE-COURTVF-COMMON PLEA 

### HAMPTONCOUNTY

T, 

### Jr>j 

### COMMONWEALTH OF 

### PENNSYLVANIA PFA 

### DIVISION 

## o/b/o minors, 

### Plaintiff,

V. 

### M.

## 'n Defendant. No.: 

### C-48-PF-2017-1104

PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF 

### APPELLATE PROCEDURE 

### 1925(a) STATEMENT 

### AND NOW, this 3rd day 

### ofApril, 2018, the Court issues 

### the following 

### statement: On 

### April 3, 

### 2018, Defendant M.7; /14, ; 

### filed and served upon 

### this Court a 

### timely Notice 

### ofAppeal 

### to the Superior Court 

### of Pennsylvania 

### from 

### the Order of Court entered on 

### January 3, 2018 and made final by 

### our Opinion and 

### Order 

### of Court entered on March 22, 2018. 

### Together with his Notice 

### ofAppeal, 

### Defendant filed a "Concise 

### Statement of Errors Complained 

### of on 

### Appeal." For 

### the reasons 

### set 

### forth in 

### our Opinion and 

### Order of Court entered on March 22, 

### 2018, we 

### respectfully suggest 

### that Defendant's appeal lacks 

### merit'andushould be 

### dismissed.

Lu BY THE COURT,

S 

### MICHAEL 1. K 

### Y,Circulated 11/05/2018 02:36 PM 

## IPt-THE-COURT-GF-COM-140-N 

### PLEAS-0-F-NORTtrAMPTON-COUNTY 

### COMMONWEALTH OF 

### PENNSyL,VANa, PFA 

### DIVISIONFI9 nni 1. 

### L- r 2 1 

### T;

# j Jr, - 

## o/b/o minors, Noo:C-48-PF-21:117,7,11.04 

### Plaintiff,

Defendant. OPINION OF THE COURT 

### Plaintiff )13,1./A

### f,F,,9,,rlfiled for a Protection from Abuse Order ("PFA") 

### against 

### Defendant) /1.4, 7: 

### M. on 

### behalf

### of his 

### two minor children, 

## izi

- and 

### T:L. (collectively, "the Children"). Plaintiff filed a second PFA 

### against the Children's 

### mother, M.D 

### t-motkerlii in a 

### separate docket 

### averring nearly identical allegations ofabuse. We 

### granted the PFA 

### with respect to 

### Defendant and dismissed the PFA 

### with respect 

### to /10.0,ert, This 

### matter is 

### before 

### the court on 

### Defendant's "Motion 

### for Reconsideration 

### of Protection 

### from Abuse 

### Order Dated January 3, 

### 2018," wherein Defendant requests 

### that we vacate 

### the final PFA entered against him, 

### reinstatethe temporary PFA, and set 

### the 

### matter for another hearing. See 

### Defendant's Motion 

### for Reconsideration 

### of Protection 

### from Abuse Order Dated 

### January 3, 

### 2018, T, 0,-,, v. m, No. 

### C-48-PF-2017-1104 (C.P. 

### Northampton Co. Jan. 23, 

### 2018) ("Motion 

### for Reconsideration"). We 

### granted 

### reconsideration and 

### the parties presented 

### argument on 

### Defendant's motion



## '7on 

### February 9, 

### 2018. This 

### matter is now 

### ready 

### for disposition.

BACKGROUND On 

### December 21, 

### 2017, 

### Plaintiff sought and obtained a 

### temporary PFA
on 

### behalf ofthe Children. See 

### Temporary Protection 

### from Abuse Order, 

### ob,Jriv, M, TM
, No. 

### C-48-PF-2017-1104 (C.P. 

### Northampton Co. Dec. 21, 

### 2017). He alleged 

### that Defendant had made verbal 

### threats to harm the Children and 

### that Defendant was 

### physically abusive 

### toward his 

### girlfriend, MOA-ke

# r See id. ¶ 9. 

### Plaintiff also 

### obtained a 

### temporary PFA 

### against Mimic, alleging 

### that mom,e,- placed the Children in 

### imminent harm by 

### allowing Defendant to reside 

### with her and the Children. See 

### Temporary Protection 

### from Abuse 

### Order,tv4,i6 v, M., D> , No. C-48-PF

### 2017-1103 (C.P. 

### Northampton Co. Dec. 21, 

### 2017). Plaintiff, Defendant, and 

### Mote,- appeared for a hearing on January 3, 2018. See 

### Transcriptof Proceedings 

### of January 3, 2018,tVV.,ac v. 

### mitA,I, No. 

### C-48-PF-2017-1104 (C.P. 

### Northampton Co. Jan. 10, 

### 2018) ("T.P. Jan. 

### 3"). 

### Plaintiff was 

### represented by 

### April L. Cordts, Esq.; 

### Defendant was 

### represented by Michael J. Dohohue, Esq.; and Mokher was represented by Al 

### Shirba, Esq. See id. 

### at 1. Given 

### the 

### similar nature ofthe two PFA 

### petitions, the cases were heard 

### together. See id. 

### at 4. 

### Defendant made no objection to 

### consolidation: THE COURT: Are we proceeding with a hearing in both 

### of these cases? 2MR. STIRBA: Yes, Your Honor. MR. DONOHUE: Yes, Your Honor. MR. STIRBA: 

### They're companion cases, Judge. 

### It's obviously the same 

### plaintiff and 

### I 

### think similar accusations, but it's up to 

### the Court. I have no 

### problem 

### if you 

### want to do 

### them 

### together. MS. CORDTS: 

### If they're taking the position 

### that it's a 

### common 

## - I 

### think it should be done 

### separately but 

### that's up 

### to the Court. MR. STIRBA: 

### I would 

### request it be done 

### separately. MS. CORDTS: 

## If you 

### want to get 

### the prisoner out of here 

### quicker. THE COURT: Which one are we doing first? MR. STIRBA: Your Honor, 

### if we can, 

### defendant /0,04.61,2,-;

THE COURT: And who is Fh-Fin

### er PArt-FEK : Myself. THE COURT: So 

### you're proceeding? MS. CORDTS: Yes, Your Honor. 

### 'Fa{

### -her filed on 

### behalf of two minor 

### children. THE COURT: Okay. Are 

### they here? MS. CORDTS: The 

### children? No. MS. CORDTS: The 

### allegations are 

### that there is a 

### custody order. 

## MO-Fka

# r

, has 

### primary physical custody of the 

### two children. mo_HAerhas been in an on again 

### off again 

### relationship with 

### m,

# rM, the second case. 

### It came to my 

### client's 

### attention via 

### statements made to him 

### directly by 

### Ma4htr that it had 

### turned into a 

### violent, 38. 

### other also 

### told 

### Plaintiff 

### that Defendant had 

### threatene to it 

### the Children and 

### then kill 

### Ma{-her. See id. 

### Motherinformed Plaintiff that she and 

### Defendantfought with each 

### other frequently in 

### front of the Children. See id. 

### at 10. IVID-Wler 

### told Plaintiff 

### that she intended to end 

### her relationship 

### with Defendant

### after the December 1, 2017 

### incident. See id. 

### at 9. Later, 

### Plaintiff learned from 

### MA-her5family that Mokirial had resumed co

### habitating with Defendant. See id. 

### Plaintiff called S. 

## R;.

, 

### the Children's maternal 

### grandmother and 

### BA(keris mother, to 

### testify. See id. at 25. 

# lg. testified that, on 

### December 9, 

### 2017, Moklmx had 

### confided in 

### her 

### that Defendant had 

### threatened to harm her and 

### the Children: Q. And 

### specifically did 

### yourdaughter makeyou aware 

### at some 

### time of some issues in 

### the 

### relationship between 

### herself and M. 

### I; A4, ? A. Yes, she did. Q. And 

### what concern 

## - what did she indicate 

### to you? A. On 

### November 16th she 

### left him. She came into my house and she gave him a 

### certain time to be 

### out. At which 

### time then she 

### went back. She 

### went back 

### that day. She called me 

### repeatedly crying. She's 

## - I mean, she's 

### repeatedly having issues and she 

### left him on 

### December 1st. She 

### wentto 

### Fix+her's house. On 

### December 8th she came to my nouse. She said he had 

### three days to 

### get out, until Sunday, Decemberthe 

### 9th. During 

### that time she told me

## - she 

### told me 

### that if she 

### didn't do 

### what KTAA said 

### that he was going 

### to punish her and he was going to make 

### herfeel 

### the pain 

### of watching him kill both 

### of my 

### grandchildren and 

### then he would kill her.

5

### Id. at 26. 

### Defendant did 

### not 

### object to the hearsaystatements 

### attributed to 

### Moktner, Further, Defendant did 

### not object to 

### the hearsay 

### within hearsay presented by 

### the 

### statements 

### attributed to Defendant by 

### M0-4-ktr, 

### 5, Ka -Further

### testified that, prior to the December 9, 2017 

### conversation, 

## (Gila had 

### told her

### that Defendantwould 

### "grabthings, he would 

### break things, punch holes in 

### the 

### walls." 

### Id. at 28. She also 

### testified 

### that in 

### August 2017 she 

### observed MO-I-ktr 

### with a large 

### bruise on her leg 

### that

## Mbhir reported Defendant had caused when he pushed her, ripping a 

### safety gate 

### out of the wall. See id. at 32, 38. 

### Immediately prior to 

### the Christmas holiday, 

# S. reported 

### that Mo-km,r and 

### Defendant were residing 

### together again and 

### that there "was a 

### lot of 

### fighting, crying." Id. at 28. 

### Neither Plaintiff, nor 

### 5°R. expressed any concern 

### over the 

### safety and 

### well-being ofthe Children when 

### they were 

### solely in 401-inter 's care. See id. at 16, 35. During 

### her 

### testimony, 

## MAkti denied all 

### allegations in 

### Plaintiff's PFA 

### petitions. See id. 

### at 42-43. She also denied 

### that Defendant had been 

### physically 

### violent toward her. See id. at 52. Regarding 

### the December 1, 2017 

### incident, 

### illth4e,rtestified that she 

### left the house 

### following a 

### disagreement with Defendant about

### "principles," related to her iPhone. 

### Id. at 53, 56. She 

### further testified 

### that she broke her own iPhone, bending 

### it in 

### halfwith her hands. See id. 

### at 54, 57. 11404442r 

### testified 

### that 

### 5,

## g,

, was 

### "incorrect" when she 

### testified regarding the bruising on her leg and 

### the 6

### threats reportedly made by 

### Defendant. See id. 

### at 52. 

### While 11404-Vvtrwas 

### testifying about Defendant's 

### current incarceration due 

### to a 

### probation 

### violation, her counsel 

### objected to the hearsay 

### statements 

### attributed to Defendant: [MS. CORDTS]. Okay. And did you become aware 

### that day 

## - did you 

### hear Mr. 

## - did 11407n say 

### anything to the Court? MR. STIRBA: 

### Objection. THE COURT: 

### It would be 

## - MR STIRBA: 

### If we're talking about what happened in a 

### criminal hearing 

### without a 

### transcript. This is 

### not 

### impeachment. He 

### hasn't testified yet. 

### It's not a 

### prior inconsistent 

### statement. Even 

### if it's not hearsay because 

### we're going 

### to go 

### with the party opponent, 

### it's absolutely 

### irrelevant and possibly very 

### prejudicial. THE COURT: Well, 

### what 

## - it wouldn't be a 

### party opponent because - 

## kttyr, 

## - how do you say his name? MR. STIRBA: 

# kJ; 44° THE COURT: He's 

### not a 

### party against her. So how are you going 

### to get past hearsay? MS. CORDTS: Well, I have M,

# r tvi= here 

### right now so I can ask him. THE COURT: So you will ask him? MS. CORDTS: 

### I can ask him. THE COURT: Okay. The 

### objection, though, is sustained as 

### hearsay. 

### Id. at 

### 48-49. The 

### objection lodged by 

### Mumtr's counsel concerned hearsay

### statements 

### attributed to a 

### defendant by a 

### co-defendant, not a 

### party opponent. See id. As such, 

### the statements, which did 

### not fall 

### within any 

### otherexception to 

### the rule against hearsay, were deemed inadmissible. See id. 

### Defendant

### testified 

### that he had 

### never harmed or

### threatened to harm 

### the Children. See id. at 58, 63. He 

### stated 

### that he was 

### currently incarcerated in 

### Northampton County Prison 

### awaiting a Gagnon 

### II hearing 

### for allegations 

### that he 

### leftthe state 

### without permission, consumed alcohol, and failed a drug 

### test. See id. at 59. 

### Atthe close 

### oftestimony, we dismissed Plaintiff's PFA 

### against 

### Mo.kar and 

### granted Plaintiff a 

### final PFA 

### against Defendantfor a period 

### of three years. See id. 

### at 70. Our ruling was based on a 

### credibility determination, namely 

### that Plaintiff's and 

### 5, ,'c 

### testimony were credible and plo+i/ter 

### testimony was 

### not credible. See id. 

### Defendantfiled a 

### "Motion 

### for Reconsideration" on 

### January 23, 2018, 

### arguing 

### that, but 

### for the allegedly inadmissible hearsay 

### testimony, Plaintiff's 

### allegations 

### of abuse could 

### not be proven. See 

### generally Motion 

### for Reconsideration. Defendant requested 

### that we vacate 

### the final PFA entered 

### against him on 

### January 3, 

### 2018, reinstate the 

### temporary PFA, and set the 

### matter 

### for a new 

### hearing. See id. I; 20. We granted 

### reconsideration and 

### the

8

### parties appeared 

### for argument on 

### Defendant's motion on February 9, 2018.1 See 

### Order

### of Court, -rt-wgr.v_pc:rivi. No. 

### C-48-PF-2017-1104 (C.P. 

### Northampton Co. Feb. 2, 

### 2018). 

### DISCUSSION Defendant argues 

### that the two PFA cases were 

### improperlyjoined and 

### that, as a 

### result, the hearsay 

### statements introduced by 

### Plaintiff and 

### 5. Re
were 

### improperly admitted against Defendant. See 

### generally Motion 

### for Reconsideration. 

### At the outset, we note 

### that in 

### order to preserve an issue 

### for appellate review, a 

### party must make a 

### timely and specific 

### objection at

### the appropriate stage 

### of the proceedings before 

### the 

### trial court. Failure 

### to 

### timely object to a basic and 

### fundamental 

### error will result in 

### waiver of 

### that issue. On appeal 

### the Superior Court will not consider a claim to 

### the 

### trial court's attention at a 

### time when any 

### error committed could have been corrected. 

### In 

### this 

### jurisdiction

. . . one 

### must object to 

### errors, 

### improprieties or 

### irregularities at the earliest possible 

### stage 

### of the adjudicatory process 

### to afford 

### the

### jurist hearing 

### the case 

### the 

### first occasion to 

### remedy the wrong and 

### possibly avoid an unnecessary appeal to 

### complain of the 

### matter. Thompson v. 

### Thompson, 963 A.2d 474, 

### 475-76 (Pa. Super. 

### 2008) (quoting Hong v. 

### Pelagatti, 765 A.2d 

### 1117, 1123 (Pa. Super. 

### 2000)); see also

1 Priorto our Order granting reconsideration, Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court. See Notice 

### ofAppeal,ti,v,,Jr, v, No. C-48-147-2017- 1104 (C.P. Northampton Co. Feb. 2, 2018). Following our Order granting reconsideration, Defendant filed a "Praecipe to Strike Notice of Appeal." See Praecipe to Strike Notice of

### Appeal,TA Sr. V. 

### M,TiKk No. C-48-PF-2017-1104 (C.P. Northampton Co. Feb. 28, 2018); see also Pa.R.A.P, 1701. 9Pa.R.A.P. 302 

### ("Issues not raised in 

### the lower court are waived and cannot be raised 

### forthe 

### first time on 

### appeal."). Here, 

### Defendant failed to make a 

### timely and specific 

### objection to the 

### consolidation 

### of the PFA cases. See T.P. Jan. 3 

### at 3-4. 

### In fact, defense counsel did 

### not even 

### participate in 

### the discussion regarding a

### joint hearing. See 

### generally id. 

### Therefore, Defendant has waived the issue 

### of consolidation. See Thompson, 963 A.2d 

### at 475-76. Assuming, arguendo, 

### that Defendant has 

### not waived 

### this issue, we conclude 

### that it was 

### entirely proper to 

### hear the cases

### together. While, the 

### Protection From Abuse Act does 

### not specifically provide 

### for consolidation, Section 

### 6117 

### ofthe Act 

### contemplates the application of 

### the broader Pennsylvania Rules 

### of Civil Procedure. See 

### generally 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6101 

### et seq.; see 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 

### 6117(a) ("a proceeding under 

### this chapter shall be in 

### accordance 

### with applicable general 

### rules"). Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 213 provides 

### that [i)n actions pending in a 

### county which 

### involve a 

### common question 

### of law or 

### fact or which arise 

### from the same 

### transaction or occurrence, the 

### court on its own 

### motion 

### or on 

### the motion 

### of any party may 

### order a 

### joint hearing 

### or 

### trial of any 

### matter in issue in 

### the actions, may 

### orderthe actions consolidated, and may make orders 

### that avoid unnecessary cost 

### or delay. Pa.R.C.P. 

### 213(a). Where

### the individual cases in a consolidated action 

### involve 

### different parties or 

### different theories of liability, the individual cases 

### retain 

### their separate identities. See Kincy v. Petro, 2 A.3d 

### 490, 491 (Pa.

10

### 2010). Here, 

### after a 

### brief summaryof Plaintiff's allegations, we concluded 

### that the cases were related and would be heard 

### together. See T.P. Jan. 3 at 3-4. We based 

### our ruling on 

### the 

### fact 

### that both PFA 

### complaints stemmed from the

same alleged 

### incidents, wherein Defendant 

### threatened to harm 

### the Children. See id. The same 

### testimony and 

### evidence was necessary in both cases. See 

### generallyT.P. Jan. 3. 

### Therefore, in 

### the interest ofjudicial economy and because 

### Plaintiff's claims 

### against 1/1/104-14k and Defendant involved common questions 

### of law and 

### fact, we 

### consolidated the cases 

### for a final PFA hearing. See id. 

### at 3-4. Defendant also 

### failed to make 

### timely and specific

### objections regarding 

### the hearsay 

### testimony admitted against him 

### during the PFA 

### hearing. 

### Initially, Defendant objected to the hearsay 

### statements of/110./,ho ) as 

### presented by 

### Plaintiff. See T.P. Jan. 3 at 7. We ruled 

### thatthe 

### statements

were admissible because 11/4Their was a 

### party opponent of Plaintiff. See id. 

### Defendant made no 

### further objection as

### to the scope 

### of

### the admissibilityof 

### frio-ktr 's 

### hearsay 

### statements. See 

### id.; Pa.R.E. 103 

### ("A party mayclaim


### error in a 

### ruling to 

### admit or exclude evidence 

### only: (1) 

### ifthe ruling admits evidence, a 

### party, on 

### the record: (A) makes a 

### timely objection, motion to 

### strike, or motion in 

### limine; and (B) states 

### the specific 

### ground, unless 

### it was 

### apparent from the 

### context."). Specifically, Defendant never requested 

### that the hearsay

### statements only be 

### admissible as against 11404-Aar,

, 

### rather than

11

### abusive 

### relationship, and 

### that she also related 

### to him 

### verbal 

### threats 

### that he made 

### directly against the children. THE COURT: 

### I 

### think they're related. I'd like to hear 

### them together. MS. CORDTS: Very well. 

### Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff testified regarding an 

### incident 

### that occurred on December 1, 

### 2017 at 

### 1:00 a.m., wherein W 01-Iner

### appeared at Plaintiff's residence with 

### the Children 

### following an 

### altercation between her and 

### Defendant. See id. at 

### 6-9. When 

### Plaintiffwas asked 

### to relate what Mokner had 

### told him 

### about the 

### altercation, Defendant's counsel 

### objected to the hearsay 

### testimony: [MS. CORDTS]. And 

### what, if anything did she say to you? MR. DONOHUE: 

### Objection to 

### the hearsay, Judge. MS. CORDTS: 

### It's 

## - THE COURT: She's a 

### party opponent. 

### It would be 

### the 

### party opponent exception to the hearsay rule so 

### the 

### objection would be 

### overruled. You can answer. 

### Id. at 7. 

### Plaintifftestified 

### that Mokner told him 

### that there had been an 

### altercation between her and 

### Defendant

### that evening and 

### that she became 

### fearful. See id. Moktr\e" also 

### told Plaintiff 

### that Defendant had broken her iPhone and punched holes in 

### the wall. See id. Situfhe.{ showed 

### Plaintiff her iPhone, 

### which 

### Plaintiff described as being "shaped like a 

### horseshoe." 

### Id. at

4both 

### defendants. Further, Defendant did 

### not object to the 

### multiple levels 

### of hearsay 

### presented by 

### Plaintiff's testimony. See T.P. at 7. 

### Separately, Defendant did 

### not 

### object to any 

### ofthe 

### testimony offered by 624g. > wherein
Mo-Nntri6 

### hearsay 

### statements were again presented. See id. 

### at 26. Given 

### the allegations made in 

### Plaintiff's PFA 

### petition and Ms. Cordts's 

### brief summary ofthe case 

### at the 

### outset of the hearing, Defendant was on notice 

### that Plaintiff's 

### complaint against him was based 

### entirely on 

### statements 

### iVerlitlymade

### to Plaintiff. See id. 

### at 4 

### ("It came to my 

### client's attention via 

### statements made 

### to him 

### directly by MO-1-14,fr- 

### that it had 

### turned into a 

### violent, abusive 

### relationship, and 

### that she also related 

### to him verbal 

### threats 

### that he made 

### directly against the 

### children."). The Supreme 

### Court of Pennsylvania has held 

### that hearsay 

### testimony of a 

### codefendant is 

### competent evidence as 

### against another defendant, where the laterfailed to object to the 

### hearsay 

### statements at trial. See Liuzzo v. McKay, 152 A.2d 

### 265, 266 (Pa. 

### 1959). Because 

### Defendant did 

### not

### timely object, Defendant is now barred 

### from raising 

### the hearsay issue at 

### this point. CONCLUSION Defendant has 

### waived the issues he now brings 

### before us in his 

### "Motion 

### for Reconsideration." As such, 

### Defendant is 

### not entitled to relief. WHEREFORE, we 

### enter the following:

12

### IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF 

### NORTHAMPTON-COUNTY COMMONWEALTH OF 

### PENNSYLVANIA PFA 

### DIVISION 

## vv..iro 

## 0/b/o minors, 

### Plaintiff,

V. 

## N M, Defendant. No.: 

### C-48-PF-2017-1104

ORDER OF COURT 

### AND NOW, this 22nd day 

### of March, 

### 2018, upon 

### consideration of 

### Defendant 

### M .1-$ 

## M. 's 

### "Motion 

### for Reconsideration 

### of Protection 

### from Abuse 

### Order Dated 

### January 3, 

### 2018," it is hereby ORDERED

### that Defendant's motion is 

### DENIED.

BYTHE COURT:



### MICHAEL J. K 

## MY,

no