NJ Laws Directions to Ken Vercammen and Associates Ken Vercammens Resume Ken Vercammen articles

Kenneth Vercammen & Associates
A Law Office with Experienced Attorneys for Your New Jersey Legal Needs

2053 Woodbridge Ave.
Edison NJ 08817

Personal Injury and Criminal
on Weekends 732-261-4005

Princeton Area
68 South Main St.
Cranbury, NJ 08512
By Appointment Only
Toll Free 800-655-2977

Domestic Violence - Criminal- T.J. v. G.G. (A-0677-08T2)







                        Submitted September 16, 2009 - Decided May 25,2010

                        Before Judges Stern and Graves.

                        On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,

                        Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex

                        County, Docket No. FV-07-070-09.

                        Law Offices of Peter Van Aulen, attorneys

                        for appellant (Peter Van Aulen, on the brief).

                        Respondent T.J. has not filed a brief.


            Defendant G.G. appeals from a domestic violence final restraining order (FRO) dated July 23, 2008.  In a letter submitted pursuant to Rule 2:5-1(b), the trial court explained that the FRO was warranted because "[d]efendant committed the act of harassment and is likely to harass the [p]laintiff in the future."  Although the standard of review of a trial courts factfinding is one of deference, Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 413 (1998), we are convinced that defendant has raised valid issues regarding the fairness of the proceedings and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the courts findings.  We therefore reverse and remand for a new trial.

            The parties have a child who is almost three years old.  Plaintiff T.J. alleged in her domestic violence complaint that defendant made a terroristic threat and committed an act of harassment while plaintiff and her mother were waiting for a visitation hearing outside of a courtroom in Essex County on July 2, 2008.  According to plaintiff, defendant walked up to her and said, "this is your last time in court."  Plaintiff testified she felt threatened by defendants statement because of "the way he said it" and "the tone of his voice."

            On the other hand, defendant testified he wanted to let plaintiff know there was no need for them to be in court because he only wanted to see his son for three hours "from five to eight instead of six to nine."  When he was asked to explain what happened, defendant testified as follows:

            We came to court.  I went to the bathroom.  On my way back out I saw [T.J.] and her mother.  I walked up to them and I said that, Im tired of going through this.  This is my last time.  I dont want to go through this anymore.  This is my last time doing this.  And that was it.

            Steve Godfrey was also at the courthouse on July 2, 2008, and he testified on behalf of plaintiff.  According to Godfrey, defendant told plaintiff "this is the last time youre coming here," and defendant also said, "Im getting tired of going through this mess, [with] you all B-I-T-C-H-E-S." Godfrey testified defendant "sounded like he was full of aggression     . . . like he was mad and upset."  However, during cross-examination, Godfrey agreed that defendant seemed to be expressing his frustration:

            Q. And I believe what you testified to was he said this is the last time Im coming here.  Is that correct?

            A. Umhmm.

            Q. He didnt say to her this is the last time youre coming here.  He said this is the last time Im coming here.  Is that correct?

            A. Yes.

            Q. And you have no idea as you sit there today, what he meant by that.  Is that correct?

            A. Not really.

            Q. Maybe he thought everything was going to be resolved that day in court and he wanted to tell everything to the judge so he never would have to come back here again, and he was expressing his frustration.  Right?

            A. Thats how it seemed, yeah.

            Q. . . . Now, he never raised his hand, did he?

            A. No.

            Q. Would you agree that it was maybe loud, or loud for a court hallway?

            A. Yeah.

            Q. And based upon that his mother came and took him away.

            A. No, his mother was right next to him.

            Q. And took him away, said lets get out of here.

            A. Yeah.

            There was also testimony that sheriffs officers intervened to calm things down because the conversation between defendant, plaintiff, and plaintiffs mother "became rather loud and rather heated."  Moreover, based on the following colloquy between the court and defendants attorney, defendant argues the judges decision to grant the FRO was influenced by "events she witnessed or assumed," or information the judge received from sheriffs officers:

            [DEFENDANTS ATTORNEY]: Obviously, Judge we know that the sheriffs officers had to go calm the situation down.

            THE COURT:  Yeah, they calm them down almost everyday.  There are certain levels of calming.  And this one rose to a level of a problem.

            [DEFENDANTS ATTORNEY]: Judge, only because she filed for a restraining order.  . . .

            THE COURT: . . . [O]fficers dont recommend filing a restraining order in every case, but in this case it was discussed.

            [DEFENDANTS ATTORNEY]: Judge, I dont know if the officers recommended it.  Theres [no] testimony --

            THE COURT: They talked about it.

            [DEFENDANTS ATTORNEY]: Theres no testimony before this Court, theres nothing in this record today that said that they recommend filing a restraining order . . . . [W]ith all due respect to the Court, I dont know where the Courts gathered that information.

            THE COURT: Because the Court was here when it happened so the Court knows.  I do recall -- we can get the testimony from them, when it happened out in the hallway there was a large commotion, officers were out there, and the next thing the Court was advised was that plaintiff was filing a restraining order.

            [DEFENDANTS ATTORNEY]: Anybody can do that.  How many times a day do they have to go out there and calm people down? . . . With all due respect to this Court, the Court really shouldnt consider things that arent in the record or consider prior knowledge that the Court has of the case in rendering a decision.

            . . . .

            THE COURT: I didnt hear the threat.  I just knew the process in which she filed.  She was in front of me.

            Although the court did not resolve the exact language of defendants statement to plaintiff, which was disputed by the parties, the court found the statement did not constitute a threat.  The court also found it was a "close call" whether defendants statement was made with a purpose to harass plaintiff.  The court ultimately determined that defendants statement was made "to harass her and cause her some frustration and pain."

            Based on our independent review of the record, we agree that this was a close case.  Moreover, it is clear that the judge spoke to the sheriffs officers, who intervened "in an altercation in the hallway" on the day that plaintiff filed her domestic violence complaint.  In addition, the court recalled "a large commotion" prior to being advised "that plaintiff was filing a restraining order."  Under these circumstances, the record supports defendants claim that the matter should have been heard by "a different judge who was not familiar with the facts of the case."  See Biunno, Current N.J. Rules of Evidence, comment 1 on N.J.R.E. 605 (2010) ("When the judge is the trier of the facts he must not permit his own personal knowledge to influence his decision in the case.").

            We further note the trial court was legitimately concerned with the parties failure to follow a prior visitation order requiring the presence of a third party whenever their child was exchanged.  Nevertheless, plaintiffs domestic violence complaint did not refer to any visitation problems, and it was "improper to base a finding of domestic violence upon acts or a course of conduct not even mentioned in the complaint."  L.D. v. W.D., 327 N.J. Super. 1, 4 (App. Div. 1999).  We therefore reverse and remand for a new trial before a different judge.

            The FRO dated July 23, 2008, is vacated.  However, the temporary restraining order remains in place pending further order of the Family Part.

            Reversed and remanded.  Jurisdiction is not retained.

Cell Phone:
E-Mail Address

If You Do Not Include a Complete E-Mail Address, Network will not Forward Your Contact Form to the Law Office.

Details of the Case
By typing " agree" into the box you are confirming that you wish to send your information to the Law Office of Kenneth Vercammen

Kenneth Vercammen was the Middlesex County Bar Municipal Court Attorney of the Year

Meet with an experienced Attorney to handle your important legal needs.
Please call the office to schedule a confidential "in Office" consultation.
Attorneys are not permitted to provide legal advice by email.

Kenneth Vercammens Law office represents individuals charged with criminal, drug offenses, and serious traffic violations throughout New Jersey. Our office helps people with traffic/ municipal court tickets including drivers charged with Driving While Intoxicated, Refusal and Driving While Suspended.

Kenneth Vercammen was the NJ State Bar Municipal Court Attorney of the Year and past president of the Middlesex County Municipal Prosecutors Association.

Criminal and Motor vehicle violations can cost you. You will have to pay fines in court or receive points on your drivers license. An accumulation of too many points, or certain moving violations may require you to pay expensive surcharges to the N.J. DMV [Division of Motor Vehicles] or have your license suspended. Dont give up! The Law Office of Kenneth Vercammen can provide experienced attorney representation for criminal motor vehicle violations.

When your job or drivers license is in jeopardy or you are facing thousands of dollars in fines, DMV surcharges and car insurance increases, you need excellent legal representation. The least expensive attorney is not always the answer. Schedule an appointment if you need experienced legal representation in a traffic/municipal court matter.

Our website www.KennethVercammen.com provides information on traffic offenses we can be retained to represent people. Our website also provides details on jail terms for traffic violations and car insurance eligibility points. Car insurance companies increase rates or drop customers based on moving violations.

Contact the Law Office of
Kenneth Vercammen & Associates, P.C.
at 732-572-0500
for an appointment.

The Law Office cannot provide legal advice or answer legal questions over the phone or by email. Please call the Law office and schedule a confidential "in office" consultation.

Ken Vercammen articles

Ken Vercammens Resume Directions to Ken Vercammen and Associates

Disclaimer This web site is purely a public resource of general New Jersey information (intended, but not promised or guaranteed to be correct, complete, or up-to-date). It is not intended be a source of legal advice, do not rely on information at this site or others in place of the advice of competent counsel. The Law Office of Kenneth Vercammen complies with the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct. This web site is not sponsored or associated with any particular linked entity unless specifically stated. The existence of any particular link is simply intended to imply potential interest to the reader, inclusion of a link should not be construed as an endorsement.

Copyright 2019. Kenneth Vercammen & Associates, P.C.