RECORD IMPOUNDED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2593-18T2
R.T.,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
T.N.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Submitted December 17, 2019 - Decided January 10, 2020
Before Judges Accurso and Gilson.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Hudson County,
Docket No. FV-09-2547-18.
Franz Cobos, attorney for appellant.
Treuhaft & Zakarin, LLP, attorneys for respondent
(Miriam E. Zakarin, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Defendant T.N. appeals from a final restraining order entered against
him pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17
to -35, based on the predicate act of assault. He contends the final restraining
order was not supported by substantial credible evidence, in part because of
errors in the interpretation of the testimony, and that the evidence failed to
establish plaintiff R.T. needed the protection the order provides. Having
reviewed the record, we cannot agree and affirm the restraining order.
The parties were married in India several years ago. They have two
young children. At the hearing on the final restraining order, plaintiff testified
through a Tamil interpreter, although defendant contends his wife, who has an
engineering degree and leads a team of software engineers for Deutsche Bank,
speaks fluent English.
Plaintiff testified to events over one weekend in June 2018, that began
with defendant upbraiding her for failing to call him at work on Friday and
ended with her fleeing their apartment with the children on Sunday after he
repeatedly struck her. Plaintiff claimed she was working from home on Friday
and got too busy to call defendant to check in during the morning as she
usually did. When she called him at lunchtime, she claimed he was very upset
and wanted to know what had kept her from telephoning.
When defendant got home from work that evening, he asked her if she
was having sex with someone else that morning. When she tried to explain
A-2593-18T2
2
that she had just been busy with work, he threatened to send her back to India.
He also complained about the dinner she cooked him, and that she broke off
rubbing his back in order to deal with the children. Plaintiff explained she was
trying to keep their toddlers from breaking something, which she knew would
upset him, when he started to berate her for not being able to even massage his
back properly.
The next day, defendant berated her for giving their four-year-old a new
pencil for him to write with while she cooked lunch. Plaintiff claimed her
husband hit her and painfully twisted her hand while asking "why don't you
have any sense . . . don't you have any brains? Why are you giving a new
pencil to him? Why don't you search for the old pencil and give it to him?"
On Sunday morning, they got into an argument over property in India.
Defendant asked about details of the purchase plaintiff could not recall.
Defendant told her to call her mother for the information, which plaintiff
declined to do immediately as she knew her mother was dealing with a family
problem and wasn't available. Defendant responded by telling her she was to
do as he said and slapped her. He then took a metal ruler from his desk and
beat her with it. He also grabbed her hair and pushed her head into a wall,
kicking her in the chest when she fell to the floor. Plaintiff testified she was
A-2593-18T2
3
crying and told him she would call her mother right away if he wanted. She
claimed defendant responded by threatening to kill her and telling her he could
not live peacefully unless she was dead.
Plaintiff told the court he had threatened her with knives in the past , and
had also threatened that he would have her parents killed in India. She
testified she believed he would kill her. When the superintendent of their
building came to speak with defendant about a leak, plaintiff took the children
and fled the apartment, calling the police. The police responded and assisted
plaintiff in removing some papers and clothing from the apartment. Plaintiff
went with the children to a friend's house and later sought a temporary
restraining order. She testified she was afraid to stay in the apartment even
after she obtained the temporary order. She explained she felt safer living
elsewhere with the children and asked that her address remain confidential and
not be disclosed to defendant.
Defendant denied ever threatening or striking his wife. He claimed they
had a "two minute argument" when plaintiff "was giving the kid a new pencil
and [he] said, you know, why not tell [the four-year-old] how to, you know,
like put the old pencil down, put the pencil in a particular place and, then,
(indiscernible) why not teach him that, that's what it is." He testified his wife
A-2593-18T2
4
disappeared with the children when the superintendent was in the apartment,
and when he went downstairs to look for them, he found his wife "talking to
the police." Asked by his counsel to describe his wife's demeanor, defendant
testified
[s]he was fine. She was — she was normal . . . and,
then, when I went outside she was trying to say —
like she was trying to say no, I don't want to go in, I
don't want to live [there anymore]. I mean she was
showing some tantrums there. That's how it was. But,
otherwise, she was physically fine, no issues with that.
Defendant claimed the couple had "arguments like every other family
do[es]. But it was nothing physical or nothing threatening or nothing to the
fact that it was — it would scare her." Asked whether they had discussed
divorce, defendant testified, "[n]ot exactly about divorce. But we're thinking
what should we do to not get in — not get into the divorce part of it." Asked
for his opinion as to why his wife was seeking a restraining order, defendant
said he thought "she's trying to get an upper hand in the divorce which is what
she's planned for. She's trying to make all the things that I have money, my
other thing and she wants to get my kids. That's what she's trying to do."
The police officers who responded to the family's home, accepted
plaintiff's complaint and took pictures of her alleged injuries also testified.
The officers testified plaintiff was very emotional. One of them testified that
A-2593-18T2
5
plaintiff did not tell them "that she was scared of [defendant]. She just didn't
want to be near him. She appeared afraid of him." Another of the officers
testified he asked plaintiff what happened. Although she attempted to tell him
and made "a motion of being struck at the back of her head," he testified there
"was a very strong language barrier, so I couldn't really understand her."
Having listened to the testimony, the judge found plaintiff's "testimony
to be more believable than [defendant's], largely based on their demeanor, and
the fact that there had been discussions prior to these incidents about the future
of their relationship." He accepted plaintiff's account of defendant haranguing
her about not calling him at the office on Friday and found defendant painfully
twisted her hand the following day after berating her for giving their older son
a new pencil.
The judge also believed defendant slapped plaintiff, pulled her hair, hit
her with a metal ruler and pushed her against the wall after the two argued
about the property in India on Sunday. He found defendant hit plaintiff and
threatened to kill her after she fell to the floor. Although concluding plaintiff's
"testimony as to the supposed earlier incidents was not terribly detailed or
helpful," the judge found that "given the two incidents of physical violence on
June 16th and June 17th a restraining order [was] necessary to protect her
A-2593-18T2
6
against further domestic violence without consideration of any prior domestic
violence."
Defendant appeals, contending the evidence did not support entry of a
final restraining order, in part because of the faulty interpretation of plaintiff's
testimony by the Tamil interpreter and plaintiff's failure to establish the order
was necessary to protect her against future acts of domestic violence. We
disagree.
Our review of a trial court's factual findings is limited. Cesare v.
Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 411 (1998). Findings by the trial court "are binding on
appeal when supported by adequate, substantial, credible evidence." Id. at 412
(citing Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974)).
Deference is especially appropriate in a case, such as this one, in which the
evidence is largely testimonial and involves questions of credibility because
the trial court's ability to see and hear the witnesses provides it a better
perspective than a reviewing court to judge their veracity. Ibid.
A final restraining order may issue only if the judge finds the parties
have a relationship bringing the complained of conduct within the Act,
N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(d); the defendant committed an act designated as domestic
violence, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-19(a); and the "restraining order is necessary, upon
A-2593-18T2
7
an evaluation of the factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(a)(1) to -29(a)(6), to
protect the victim from an immediate danger or to prevent further abuse."
Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. Super. 112, 125-27 (App. Div. 2006).
Applying those standards here, we find no basis to upset the factual
findings or legal conclusions of the trial court set forth above. The parties
were both represented by counsel and each party testified at length. The judge
had ample opportunity to judge their credibility and obviously found
defendant's wanting.
As to issues with the interpretation, we note that defendant also speaks
Tamil. And, as plaintiff notes, there is an audio recording of the proceedings
before the trial court. Although defendant alleges the interpreter's errors were
significant, he has failed to provide any examples in which the interpretation
failed to capture plaintiff's testimony accurately. In short, defendant has failed
to demonstrate any alleged inadequacies in the interpretation deprived him of a
fair trial.1 See State v. Guzman, 313 N.J. Super. 363, 379 (App. Div. 1998)
(discussing standard for adequate translation of criminal trial proceedings).
1
We also reject defendant's suggestion that the court erred in appointing an
interpreter for plaintiff. N.J.S.A. 2B:8-1 requires each county to "provide
interpreting services necessary for cases from that county in the Law Division
and the Family Part of the Chancery Division" and that such interpreters "shall
(continued)
A-2593-18T2
8
Finally, although we acknowledge defendant's point that the drafters of
the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act did not intend the commission of any
of the incorporated criminal statutes "automatically would warrant the issuance
of a domestic violence order," Corrente v. Corrente, 281 N.J. Super. 243, 248
(App. Div. 1995), the court acted well within its discretion in determining a
final restraining order was necessary to protect plaintiff from further abuse on
the evidence in the record. See Silver, 387 N.J. Super. at 127. Although the
testimony of the history of domestic violence between the parties was limited,
the court found defendant engaged in a physical assault on plaintiff over the
course of two days. We are thus well satisfied under these circumstances that
plaintiff proved a restraining order was necessary for her protection and safety.
See McGowan v. O'Rourke, 391 N.J. Super. 502 (App. Div. 2007) (affirming
FRO based on a single act of harassment).
Affirmed.
be appointed and shall perform their duties in the manner established by the
Chief Justice." Standard 1.2 of the "New Jersey Judiciary Language Access
Plan" provides that "[a]n interpreter shall be provided to any court user when
either that court user or that court user’s attorney represents that the person is
unable to understand or communicate proficiently in English." See
Administrative Directive #01-17, "New Jersey Judiciary Language Access
Plan" (Jan. 10, 2017). We note in that regard the testimony of one of the
responding police officers of his difficulty in understanding plaintiff because
of the "language barrier."
A-2593-18T2
9
R.T. VS. T.N. (FV-09-2547-18, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)
Combined Opinion