In a Decision – C.O. v. T.O. (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held:
The Court determined that a Final Restraining Order was warranted.
The Appellate Division found that the evidence supported the trial judge’s findings of a predicate act of harassment based on the number of messages from defendant, that the messages worsened the already discordant relationship and that the FRO was necessary to prevent further escalation. The Appellate Division rejected the notion that the trial judge’s findings were not supported by the record and that victim’s testimony that she feared him was “subjective” and “self-interested” and belied by her profanity-laced attack on his girlfriend. The Trial Judge found that the disharmonious relationship, divorce proceedings and defendant’s contempt conviction for violating the FRO made an FRO necessary to prevent further escalation and harassment. The court declined to address defendant’s argument about the improper use of his contempt conviction because the FRO was justified without considering the conviction.