RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5127-18T1

K.U.,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

E.M.,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________

Submitted May 12, 2020 – Decided May 26, 2020

Before Judges Fisher and Rose.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Union County, Docket 

No. FV-20-1359-19.

Lubiner, Schmidt & Palumbo, attorneys for appellant 

(Todd David Palumbo and John Evan Jenkins, on the 

brief).

Respondent has not filed a brief.

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5127-18T1

Plaintiff K.U. (Kevin, a fictitious name) filed this action against his 

former girlfriend, defendant E.M. (Evelyn, also a fictitious name), under the 

Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (the Act), N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35, 

alleging he was harassed by her communications. At the end of a short hearing

at which only the unrepresented parties testified, the judge found Kevin credible, 

concluded Evelyn's communications were of a harassing nature, and issued a 

final restraining order (FRO) in Kevin's favor. Evelyn's later reconsideration 

motion was denied.

Evelyn appeals, arguing that the trial judge erred by failing to determine 

whether her communications were made with a purpose to harass and by failing 

to allow her to cross-examine Kevin. We find insufficient merit in these 

arguments to warrant further discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E),

and affirm, adding only a few brief comments.

Evelyn, of course, is correct that to find harassment a judge must 

determine that the harasser acted, in the words of N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4, "with 

purpose to harass another." See J.D. v. M.D.F., 207 N.J. 458, 477-78 (2011); 

State v. Burkert, 444 N.J. Super. 591, 600 (App. Div. 2016). It is also true that

in his oral decision the judge did not actually say whether Evelyn's 

communications were made with a purpose to harass Kevin or his current 
3

A-5127-18T1

girlfriend. But, the judge found the communications were harassing and, 

because the very nature of the communications, which included the sending of 

what were referred to as "racy confections," were on their face annoying, 

alarming, and otherwise pointless, we are satisfied the judge implicitly found 

Evelyn's communications were made with a purpose to harass.

Evelyn also correctly argues due process principles require that judges

afford domestic violence litigants with "the opportunity to cross-examine 

witnesses." J.D., 207 N.J. at 481; see also Peterson v. Peterson, 374 N.J. Super. 

116, 124-26 (App. Div. 2005). But, because such matters are speedily 

adjudicated, domestic violence judges are not required to give any great "leeway 

to a party whose testimony seems disjointed or irrelevant." J.D., 207 N.J. at

481. Having closely examined the trial transcript, we conclude that the judge 

provided Evelyn with the opportunity to cross-examine Kevin and that she did, 

in fact, cross-examine Kevin, albeit briefly.

After Kevin finished testifying, the judge advised Evelyn that she was 

"under no requirement to say anything" and asked "if [she] would like to respond 

to [Kevin's] testimony." After Evelyn expressed a desire to respond, the 

following occurred:

[EVELYN]: But before I do, I do have a couple of 

clarifying questions.
4

A-5127-18T1

THE COURT: Questions for [Kevin]?

[EVELYN]: Yes.

THE COURT: Well, you know, it's a little difficult to 

conduct a cross-examination when it's plaintiff against 

defendant. Suppose you just tell me what your 

concerns are.

Evelyn then asked Kevin a few questions.

Evelyn's first question, as the judge correctly held, sought irrelevant 

information and, so, he did not require a response from Kevin. The judge 

restated Evelyn's second question for clarity's sake and followed it with a few 

more questions of his own. After that, Evelyn posed what she described as her 

"final question" for Kevin. That question prompted discussion between the 

judge and Evelyn, and Kevin never was asked to give a response; Evelyn did not 

complain about not getting an answer, and she did not pursue that line of 

questioning further. The judge then asked "what else[?]" Evelyn said "[t]hat's 

it in . . . regard to the clarifying questions," and she then gave her own direct 

testimony. We are satisfied the judge provided Evelyn with the opportunity to 

cross-examine, which she exercised as fully as she desired.

Affirmed.