The Appellate Division did not necessarily agree with Defendant’s arguments but required a remand because of troubling statements made by the trial judge, the haphazard manner in which the hearing was conducted, and the erroneous information the judge gave to defendant about the use of his testimony.
Both parties were self-represented when they appeared for the FRO hearing. The judge began questioning them about the nature of their relationship without placing either party under oath. The judge then indicated that he had reviewed plaintiff's complaint and, even though plaintiff alleged prior acts of domestic violence, he stated that the complaint did not allege "any real domestic violence history." The judge also noted that the TRO had not been issued by a superior court judge, but by a municipal court judge.
Read more . . .