In a Decision – C.B. v. R.A.-X. (an "Unreported Decision") >> the Court Held:
The Appellate Division affirmed the Decision of the Trial Court and determined that the Trial Court’s conclusion that while Wife committed the predicate act of Harassment, Husband did not demonstrate a need for protection.
The trial judge determined that although plaintiff had proven defendant committed several acts of harassment against him, an FRO was not necessary because there was no proof that defendant posed a threat to plaintiff. The court further found that a remand was not necessary to determine whether Husband violated the cyber-harassment law because, in exercising original jurisdiction, the appellate court found that even though Wife violated the law, she was not a proven threat to justify the issuance of an FRO. The court determined that even though the predicate act of harassment occurred, the second prong of Silver could not be satisfied because Wife made no acts or threats of violence.