N.L. VS. P.C.L. (FV-07-0602-19, ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) ( 2020 )

RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-1918-18T2
N.L.,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
P.C.L.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Submitted April 30, 2020 – Decided May 29, 2020
Before Judges Alvarez and DeAlmeida.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Essex County, Docket
No. FV-07-0602-19.
Garces Grabler & LeBrocq, PC, attorneys for appellant
(Arlindo B. Araujo, on the briefs).
N.L., respondent pro se.
PER CURIAM
Defendant P.C.L. appeals from a November 27, 2018 final restraining
order (FRO) barring him from contact with N.L., the complainant, pursuant to
the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act of 1991, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35.
We affirm for the reasons stated by Judge Anne Marie Bramnick, J.S.C., in her
cogent and thoughtful decision.
The parties, who are married, have two children. N.L. obtained the
temporary restraining order (TRO) based on allegations that defendant sexually
and physically assaulted her. P.C.L. contends she filed the complaint solely to
gain leverage in the pending divorce, in which custody is disputed. During the
FRO hearing, both parties testified, although N.L. was self-represented.
On appeal of the FRO, P.C.L. asserts the court committed the following
errors:
POINT I:
TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FREELY AND UNDULY
AIDING THE PLAINTIFF'S TESTIMONY IN
FINDING THE PREDICATE ACT OF SEXUAL
ASSAULT.
POINT II:
TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FINDING THAT THE
PREDICATE ACT OF SEXUAL ASSAULT WAS
SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT THE FRO, DURING
THE ONGOING DIVORCE CASE, TO PREVENT
FURTHER ABUSE.
Having reviewed the record, we do not agree that the judge "unduly
aid[ed]" N.L. In this case, compounding the commonplace difficulties attendant
to the process when the litigant in a domestic violence proceeding is self-
A-1918-18T2
2
represented, the underlying events involved P.C.L. sexually assaulting N.L.
From the record, it appears N.L. had some reluctance to respond with the
necessary detail to questions regarding the assault. The judge had no alternative
but to question N.L. as she did regarding the underlying incidents, and she did
so fairly and reasonably.
A judge has broad discretion in controlling the courtroom and court
proceedings. N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. A.B., 231 N.J. 354, 366
(2017); N.J.R.E. 611(a). This includes engaging in the questioning that took
place here. We see no abuse of discretion in the manner in which the judge
elicited the relevant information. The issue does not require further discussion
in a written opinion. See R. 2:11-3(e)(2)(E).
We only briefly touch upon P.C.L.'s second point. To reiterate, the judge
found that N.L. had established by a preponderance of the evidence two
predicates acts of sexual assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2(c)(1). She further concluded
N.L. had met the second prong of Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112, 126-27
(App. Div. 2006), and that a restraining order was necessary to prevent future
abuse. The judge determined that P.C.L.'s conduct established "a consistent
pattern of power and control" even while the divorce litigation was pending,
thus requiring an FRO "to protect [N.L.] from further abuse."
A-1918-18T2
3
During the course of the marriage, N.L. testified, credibly in the judge's
opinion, regarding P.C.L.'s examination of her phone calls and text messages;
times he awakened her in the middle of the night, punched walls during
arguments, and threatened to have her deported; and his claim that he did not
force himself upon his wife, but rather, that she "cooperated" with sexual
activity. Given that the parties continue to have contact related to their children,
in addition to the nature of P.C.L.'s behavior, the judge's decision that N.L.
satisfied the second prong of Silver is amply supported by the proofs in the
record. No further discussion is required. R. 2:11-3(e)(2)(E).
Affirmed.
A-1918-18T2
4