### RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 4005

- 18T2

V.H., 1

Plaintiff

- Respondent,

v.

J.X.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

Argu ed October 8, 2020

- Decided
Before Judges Currier and DeAlmeida.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen County, Docket No. FV

- 02

- 1699

- 19.
J.X., appellant argued the cause pro se.

Scott D. Dana her argued the cause for respondent (Snyder Sarno D'Aniello Maceri & Da Costa, LLC, attorneys ; Scott D. Danaher, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

1 We use initials to preserve the confidentiality of court records concerning domestic violenc e. R. 1:38

- 3(d)(9). NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding up on any court

. " A lthough it is posted on the internet
, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in o ther cases is limited

. R

. 1:36

- 3.

November 1 2 , 20202 A

- 4005

- 18T2

Defendant appeals from the final restraining order (FRO) enter ed against

him under the Prevention of Domestic Viole nce Act (PDVA), N.J.S.A. 2C:25

-

17 to

- 35

. After a review of the respective contentions and the record, in light
of the applicable principles of law, we affirm.
We derive the following facts from the parties ' testimony at trial. The
parties were going th rough divorce proceedings at the time of these e v ents but
still lived together. They have two young children.
On the night of these events, in March 2019, the parties were arguing

abo ut the preparation of tax returns for plaintiff's business. Plaintiff stated that
defendant slapped her on the face during the argument. She also testified that

when her mother came downstairs and got between the p a rties, defendant also

struck her

. Plai ntiff's mother confirmed in her testimony that she was struck by

defend ant

. Plain t iff denied striking her husband. Plaintiff said defendant had
struck her on prior occasions and she is afraid of him.
Although defendant agreed he and plain t iff were arguing about a business
matter, he disputed that he struck her during the en counter. Instead, he testified
plaintiff slapped him across the face during the argument. He also stated that as
he walked away
, plain t iff hit him on the back of his neck. Defe nd ant denied3 A

- 4005

- 18T2

striking plaintiff's m other. Both parties called the police. D efendant was
arrested and charged with assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12

- 1(a).
During the FRO t rial, both parties testified regarding a 2015 incident. On
that occasion, p la i n t iff said defe ndant bec a me ang r y and thre w their child's
highchair and a toy cha i r onto the floo r

. Plai nt iff stated she and the child wer e
injured during the incident. The police were called. Al t hou gh plai n t iff obtained
a temporary restraining order (TRO)
, s he later dismissed it.
In contrast, defendant contended plaintiff was the aggressor of that

incident. He said she jumped on top of him while he was sit t i n g on the c ouch

and he was defen d ing himself from the attack. During cross

- examination,
plaintiff admitted that both parties were slapping each other and that she bit

defendant while he w as restrain ing her wrists.
Plaintiff obtained a TRO the day following the March 2019 incident.
During the April 8, 2019 trial, both parties were repre s ented by counsel.

Plaintiff's mother testified with the use of a n interpreter. Neither of the partie s
nor their counsel requested the use of the interpreter during their respective
testimony.4 A

- 4005

- 18T2

In a well

- reasoned oral decision fo l l owing the close of testimony, Judge
Terry Paul Bottinelli granted plaintiff a FRO. In making credibility findings,
Judge Botti nelli s t ated:

I was watching carefully the testimony that was given. I am satisfied that the testimony of the mother

- in

- law

was accurate. I do not believe that she was making this up. She was very clear with what happened between the two of them with th e arguments that developed between he, she, the husband and the wife, that she

came downstairs with the children, that when she t ried to intervene with this, that she was struck on the right side of her head.
Similarly, with V.H. , I'm satisfied that whe n she was asked a question, she answered the questions clearly and succinctly. She did not embellish, although she could have. She testified quite forthrightly that, during the course of this incident, that her husband had struck her on the right

- hand sid e of her face. She testified that the police came and, as a result of an investigation by the police, there were charges that were lodged not against her but against her husband.

J.X. testified that he never did anything, he didn't strike his wife, he didn't strike his mother

- in

- law. He testified that this incident is all as a result of the filing of a complaint

. . . for divorce.

. . . . He said that it was she who slapped him and it was he who called the police.

On his cross

- examination, it see med that he was wandering a bit with regard to his testimony. He5 A

- 4005

- 18T2 testified that it's his belief that when there are clai ms that are made by the husbands, that the law does not protect husbands. The law [as defendant misperceives it] goes and protects the wives.

I find that [ p laintiff] was credible in her testimony. I do not find that the husband was particularly credible

. He was argumentative with regard to questions that were being asked and I find that the wife was more credible as far as what transp ired that evening, as well as that which happened with the mother

- in

- law.
Judge Bottinelli found defendant had struck p laintiff and her mother and
,
therefore
, had established a predicate act of assault. In addressing plai n t i ff's
need for a FRO, the judg e found there wa s a need to protect plai n t i ff from further

acts of domesti c violence. He n o ted she had pr e v i ous l y received a TRO and

dismissed it when defendant promised he would not hurt her a gain

. Therefore,
the court granted the FRO.
On appeal, def endant contends the trial court erred in issuing a FRO and
was mistaken in not identifying inconsistenc i e s in the t e stimony and in h is
interpretation of the testimony. Defenda n t also assert s the court erred in its
ruling on certain ob j ection s. We disagre e and affirm substantially for the
reasons expressed in Judge Bottinelli's thoughtful decision.
Our scope of rev iew of Family Part orders is limited. Cesare v. Cesare
, 154 N.J. 394, 411 (1998). We owe substantial deference to the Family Part's6 A

- 4005

- 18T2

findings of fact because of its special expertise in family matters. Id. at 413.
Deference is especially appropriate in bench trials when the evidence is " largely
testimonial and involves questions of credibility. " Id. at 412. A trial judge who

observes witness es and listens to their testimon y is in the best position to " make

first

- hand credibility judgments about the witnesses who appear on the stand. "
N.J. Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. E.P. , 196 N.J. 88, 104 (2008).
We are satisfied the totality of the c ircumstances supports Judge

Bottinelli's finding s that plaintiff established a predicate act of assault and th ere
was sufficient evidence that a FRO was necessary to protect her from future acts

of assault and domestic violence. See Silver v. Silver , 387 N.J. Super. 112, 127
(App. Div. 2006). Although defendant is correct that plaintiff initially said she

was no t afraid to have defendant in the home, she later stated she was mistaken

and that she was " afraid " and " scared. " H aving reviewed the record, we find no

basis to disturb the judge 's credibility determ i nati o ns, and his factual find ing s

are supported by sub s tantial credible e vidence. See Cesare , 154 N.J. at 411

- 12.
All other points rai s ed by defe nd ant lack sufficient merit to w a rrant

discussion. R

. 2:11

- 3 (e)(2).7 A

- 4005

- 18T2 Affirmed.