In a Decision – B.L.F. v. T.G.C., , (a "Reported Decision") >> the New Jersey Supreme Court Held:
The Appellate Division essentially affirmed the Trial Court’s conclusion that the predicate act of Assault did occur and that there was a need for a Domestic Violence Order notwithstanding that the trial court improperly allowed plaintiff to testify about two unplanned encounters that were not specifically identified in the amended complaint.
The Appellate Division concluded that it was improper for the trial court to consider testimony concerning these two additional episodes without asking the defendant whether he needed time to prepare a response to those new allegations. It is not clear on this record whether and to what extent plaintiff's testimony concerning these additional incidents may have affected the trial's court's conclusions with respect to the harassment and stalking predicate offenses. It is clear, however, that plaintiff's testimony about these two additional incidents would have no effect on the trial court's findings with respect to the assault predicate offense and the need for a FRO based on that assault.