Decision – A.W. v. N.M. (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held:
The Appellate Division determined that Domestic Violence occurred when a scorned lover (both parties engaged in an affair with each other while each was married to the other). The Man terminated the affair and was to tell his wife. The Woman (Defendant) contacted the man, his home, his wife and events occurred. A Domestic Violence Order was entered and then a Consent Agreement was entered. A second Domestic Violence claim was presented. The Appellate Division found that plaintiff presented overwhelming evidence that defendant took actions intended to intimidate and scare plaintiff and his family and that, contrary to the Trial Court’s Decision, governing law did not require a finding of abusive or violent conduct or threats of violence.
While both married to other people, plaintiff and defendant engaged in a five-month affair. Plaintiff ultimately ended the relationship, telling defendant he wanted no further contact with her and that he intended to tell his wife about the affair. Plaintiff alleged that defendant thereafter made hundreds of calls to his home, work, and cell phones, came to his home demanding to speak to his wife, and sent his wife offensive text messages. Plaintiff also observed defendant following his car, and one day found his tire slashed. The parties later entered a consent agreement, preventing defendant from having any form of contact with or coming within 100 feet of plaintiff or his family. Defendant continued to call plaintiff at work and mail him letters and packages (including a bikini-clad photograph of and Valentine's Day cards and packets of hot chocolate). The Appellate Division determined that the trial court erroneously determined that the FRO statute and governing law required a finding of abusive or violent conduct or threats of violence. Instead, the court found that plaintiff presented overwhelming evidence that defendant took actions intended to intimidate and scare plaintiff and his family.