In a Decision – A.M.C. v. P.B.- (a "Reported Decision") >>
the Court Held:
The Appellate Division found that the judge failed to adequately consider the inherently violent nature of the predicate acts. Under these circumstances, the need to issue an FRO was "self-evident."
The Appellate Division further hold the trial court erred as a matter of public policy when it considered the Judiciary's failure to carry out this legal responsibility as a factor in favor of denying plaintiff's application for an FRO. (Defendant, a Newark Police Officer, was not served with the TRO.)
The Trial Court deemed it unlikely that the parties would again interact in the future.
HELD: The trial court misapplied the two-prong standard we articulated in Silver when it failed to adequately consider: (1) the inherently violent nature of the predicate acts defendant committed against plaintiff over a three-week period; (2) the fact defendant physically assaulted plaintiff to prevent her from leaving the marital residence and seeking refuge in a women's shelter; and (3) the parties' history of domestic violence, which included both violent behavior and threats of further violence. Under these circumstances, the need to issue an FRO to protect plaintiff from further abuse by defendant is "self-evident.