RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4005-18T2

V.H.,1

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

J.X.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Argued 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. Danaher 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 violence. 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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 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.

November 12, 2020
2

A-4005-18T2

Defendant appeals from the final restraining order (FRO) entered against 

him under the Prevention of Domestic Violence 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 through divorce proceedings at the time of these events but 

still lived together. They have two young children.

On the night of these events, in March 2019, the parties were arguing 

about 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 parties, defendant also 

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

defendant. Plaintiff denied striking her husband. Plaintiff said defendant had 

struck her on prior occasions and she is afraid of him.

Although defendant agreed he and plaintiff were arguing about a business 

matter, he disputed that he struck her during the encounter. Instead, he testified 

plaintiff slapped him across the face during the argument. He also stated that as 

he walked away, plaintiff hit him on the back of his neck. Defendant denied 
3

A-4005-18T2

striking plaintiff's mother. Both parties called the police. Defendant was 

arrested and charged with assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(a).

During the FRO trial, both parties testified regarding a 2015 incident. On 

that occasion, plaintiff said defendant became angry and threw their child's 

highchair and a toy chair onto the floor. Plaintiff stated she and the child were

injured during the incident. The police were called. Although plaintiff obtained 

a temporary restraining order (TRO), she 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 sitting on the couch 

and he was defending himself from the attack. During cross-examination, 

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

defendant while he was restraining her wrists. 

Plaintiff obtained a TRO the day following the March 2019 incident. 

During the April 8, 2019 trial, both parties were represented by counsel.

Plaintiff's mother testified with the use of an interpreter. Neither of the parties 

nor their counsel requested the use of the interpreter during their respective 

testimony.
4

A-4005-18T2

In a well-reasoned oral decision following the close of testimony, Judge 

Terry Paul Bottinelli granted plaintiff a FRO. In making credibility findings, 

Judge Bottinelli stated:

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 the arguments that developed 

between he, she, the husband and the wife, that she 

came downstairs with the children, that when she tried 

to intervene with this, that she was struck on the right

side of her head. 

Similarly, with V.H., I'm satisfied that when 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 side 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 seemed that he was

wandering a bit with regard to his testimony. He
5

A-4005-18T2

testified that it's his belief that when there are claims

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 [plaintiff] 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 transpired that evening, as well 

as that which happened with the mother-in-law.

Judge Bottinelli found defendant had struck plaintiff and her mother and,

therefore, had established a predicate act of assault. In addressing plaintiff's 

need for a FRO, the judge found there was a need to protect plaintiff from further 

acts of domestic violence. He noted she had previously received a TRO and 

dismissed it when defendant promised he would not hurt her again. Therefore, 

the court granted the FRO. 

On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in issuing a FRO and 

was mistaken in not identifying inconsistencies in the testimony and in his 

interpretation of the testimony. Defendant also asserts the court erred in its 

ruling on certain objections. We disagree and affirm substantially for the 

reasons expressed in Judge Bottinelli's thoughtful decision. 

Our scope of review of Family Part orders is limited. Cesare v. Cesare, 

154 N.J. 394, 411 (1998). We owe substantial deference to the Family Part's 
6

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 witnesses and listens to their testimony 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 circumstances supports Judge 

Bottinelli's findings that plaintiff established a predicate act of assault and there 

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 not afraid to have defendant in the home, she later stated she was mistaken 

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

basis to disturb the judge's credibility determinations, and his factual findings 

are supported by substantial credible evidence. See Cesare, 154 N.J. at 411-12.

All other points raised by defendant lack sufficient merit to warrant 

discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
7

A-4005-18T2

Affirmed.