Economic Abuse – Cause of Action For Domestic Violence

In a  Decision – CG v EG - (an "Unreported Decision") >> 

 the Court Held:

Defendant’s attempted interference with plaintiff’s employment constitutes purposeful harassment and coercion, and warrants the issuance of a final restraining order under New Jersey’s Prevention of Domestic Violence Act.

A snippet:

Work is a place to concentrate on work, and an objectively reasonable person most likely and logically does not appreciate or want an ex-partner phoning the employer, or appearing unannounced at the jobsite to cause disturbance.

In a Published Decision - State v DGM - the Court Held that the Defendant who was sitting near and briefly filming the victim at their child's soccer game did NOT violate a Domestic Violence Order.

SNIPPETS:

Defendant was "prohibited" defendant "from having any (oral, written, personal, electronic 3 A-5783-12T4 or other) form of contact or communication with" the Victim.

.. . .

Defendant was sitting near and briefly filming the Victim  at their six-year-old son's soccer game.

.. . .

Because defendant was acquitted in all other respects, we examine the sufficiency of the judge's conclusion that Defendant violated the FRO's "no contact" provision by recording Victim's image with his cellphone or, in the trial judge's words, whether "recording [her] was a form of contact."

.. . .

Although such conduct falls within the FRO's prohibition on "communication," we conclude that defendant could not have fairly anticipated this result. In applying the doctrine of lenity, we reverse.

. . .

Because, until today's decision, it was not clear whether the brief filming of a victim in an open and public place constituted a form of prohibited communication, defendant could not have known to a sufficient certainty that he was violating the FRO by engaging in the conduct found to have occurred by the trial judge.

******************************************************

The information contained in this communication is similar to ordinary telephone conversations and does not reflect the level of factual or legal inquiry which would be applied in the event a formal opinion was rendered by this firm. The information may also be confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. Nothing in this communication is intended to constitute a waiver of any privilege of the confidentiality of this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system. This firm accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage from the use or receipt of this message and/or any attachments hereto, including any damage caused by virus.

3/26/15

In an Unpublished Decision "Sapio", the Victim was employed by an entity within a vision center adjacent to a Walmart store. Defendant was barred from the Victim's "place(s) of employment". The Appellate Division determined that since Defendant was not barred from Walmart (as opposed to the Victim's place of employment).

SNIPPETS:

The FRO does not set forth with any specificity that defendant was barred from the Walmart store. N.J.S.A. 2C:25- 29(b)(6). The fact [ ] may have had to traverse over or 8 A-0674-13T1 through other locations to reach her place of employment does not convert such locations into areas from which defendant is banned.

. . .

Potentially, defendant is prohibited from entering these locations, but only if a court finds [ ] regularly frequents them and they are specifically identified in a domestic violence order. N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(b)(6)

.. . .

Accordingly, because the FRO did not prohibit defendant from entering the Walmart store, the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knowingly violated the FRO when he entered the store on June 10, 2013. Under these circumstances, defendant's conviction cannot stand.          

******************************************************

The information contained in this communication is similar to ordinary telephone conversations and does not reflect the level of factual or legal inquiry which would be applied in the event a formal opinion was rendered by this firm. The information may also be confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. Nothing in this communication is intended to constitute a waiver of any privilege of the confidentiality of this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system. This firm accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage from the use or receipt of this message and/or any attachments hereto, including any damage caused by virus.

3/4/15

Allan Weinberg - Attorney at Law -  

 100 Craig Road,  Suite 102  Manalapan, NJ 07726

 732 80 NJ LAW (732) 806-5529

 AllanWEsq@GMail.com 

www.AllanWeinbergEsq.com

Twitter:       AllanWEsq      

FaceBook:  Allan Weinberg   

LinkedIn: AllanWeinberg                                                                                                   

Domestic Violence

     - Texting -

V.A.C. v S.J.C

[An Unreported Decision ]

(NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION)]  

Excerpt:

Defendant argues on appeal that he wanted to reconcile with plaintiff, not harass her. We note that defendant may well have had a dual purpose in sending the messages: to reconcile and to harass. Our Supreme Court has stated, "We do not imply that, in evaluating claims of domestic violence, an individual can have only one motive or intent." J.D. v. M.D.F., 207 N.J. 458, 487 (2011). Drawing from common sense and experience, the end of a relationship may cause a party to behave in a harassing fashion while telling himself it is in the cause of true love. Defendant did not testify as to his purpose in contacting plaintiff, but the judge's finding that he had the purpose to harass is certainly supported by adequate, substantial, credible

evidence.

******************************************************

The information contained in this communication is similar to ordinary telephone conversations and does not reflect the level of factual or legal inquiry which would be applied in the event a formal opinion was rendered by this firm. The information may also be confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. Nothing in this communication is intended to constitute a waiver of any privilege of the confidentiality of this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail or telephone and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system. This firm accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage from the use or receipt of this message and/or any attachments hereto, including any damage caused by virus.

11/25/14