Preview:

a5687-04.opn.html
N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35 (DVA), in favor of his girlfriend, Christina Sweeney. Following a lengthy hearing in which
both parties, who were represented by counsel, testified and presented witnesses, the Family Part judge found the
predicate offense of assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1a, was committed by both parties. Plaintiff does not appeal the
simultaneous entry of an FRO against her. On appeal, defendant contends that an act of domestic violence by him
was not proven since he acted in defense of himself and his property, and apart from self-defense, there was an
insufficient basis for a finding by the court that he committed an act of domestic violence. We disagree and affirm
substantially for the reasons articulated on the record by Judge Rauh. "> Original Wordprocessor Version
This case can also be found at *CITE_PENDING*.
(NOTE: The status of this decision is unpublished.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-5687-04T35687-04T3
CHRISTINA SWEENEY,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
CRAIG P. UNGARO,
Defendant-Appellant.
Submitted: December 20, 2005 - Decided:
Before Judges Skillman and Axelrad.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division - Family Part, Cape
May County, FV-05-451-05.
Jacobs and Barbone, attorneys for appellant (Edwin J. Jacobs, Jr., on the brief).
Paul J. Baldini, attorney for respondent.
PER CURIAM
Defendant Craig Ungaro appeals from a Final Restraining Order (FRO) entered on cross-complaints under the
Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35 (DVA), in favor of his girlfriend, Christina Sweeney.
Following a lengthy hearing in which both parties, who were represented by counsel, testified and presented
witnesses, the Family Part judge found the predicate offense of assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1a, was committed by both
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a5687-04.opn.html[4/20/2013 8:06:31 PM]




a5687-04.opn.html
parties. Plaintiff does not appeal the simultaneous entry of an FRO against her. On appeal, defendant contends that
an act of domestic violence by him was not proven since he acted in defense of himself and his property, and apart
from self-defense, there was an insufficient basis for a finding by the court that he committed an act of domestic
violence. We disagree and affirm substantially for the reasons articulated on the record by Judge Rauh.
The record clearly indicates the parties dated from June 2004 through March 7, 2005. Their relationship, however,
was far from stable, as defendant was also involved with another woman during some or all of that period of time.
The parties had a few drinks with their acquaintances the evening of March 7, 2005. Plaintiff brought dinner over to
defendant's apartment later that evening. Around l0 p.m. a woman telephoned, who plaintiff assumed was
defendant's other girlfriend, and plaintiff became visibly upset. Plaintiff claimed she threw the leftover food onto
the stove to show her displeasure and started to leave. According to plaintiff, defendant prevented her from
retrieving her keys by pushing and shoving her. After she retrieved her keys, she started to exit through the front
door when her purse strap became caught. He then hit her with the metal door as she was trying to disengage her
purse strap from the door handle. Plaintiff testified that when she put her foot in the doorjamb to stop defendant
from hitting her with the door, he grabbed her around the shoulders and neck and began to strangle her. Plaintiff
bit defendant to stop him from strangling her. Plaintiff extricated herself, drove to the police station and was
evaluated at an emergency room. The x-ray of plaintiff's arm was negative; however, plaintiff testified she suffered
severe abrasions to her neck, chest and arm as illustrated by the photographs that were admitted into evidence.
Plaintiff's friend, Dorothy Russo, who observed her after the incident, also testified as to her injuries.
Defendant testified that plaintiff was insanely jealous of his other girlfriend, came over that night drunk, and went
into a rage when Jennifer Seurman, a business associate, telephoned him. Defendant claimed plaintiff began
punching and screaming at him when he requested she leave his apartment. According to defendant, as he was
trying to shut the door to get plaintiff out of the apartment, she kicked a hole in the wall and bit him. He introduced
into evidence a photograph showing the bite. Defendant claimed plaintiff was the aggressor, and he was just
protecting himself and his property from further damage. Seurman testified that she heard plaintiff screaming at
defendant.
The judge heard the testimony of the parties and a multitude of witnesses, viewed the pictures and made a
credibility assessment that defendant was the aggressor. The judge noted that defendant had provided no
explanation for the marks and scratches on each side of Christina's neck and found the injuries appeared too
extensive to be explained by defendant's account of his efforts to defend himself.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a5687-04.opn.html[4/20/2013 8:06:31 PM]




a5687-04.opn.html
Our scope of review of a trial judge's factfinding function is limited. The general rule is that findings by the trial
court are binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial credible evidence in the record. Rova Farms
Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974). We accord due deference to the credibility findings
and the feel of the case by the trial judge who has heard and observed the witnesses. Pascale v. Pascale, 113 N.J. 20,
33 (1988); Gallo v. Gallo, 66 N.J. Super. l, 5 (App. Div. l961). This is particularly so with Family Part judges who
possess special expertise in these types of matters. Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 413 (1998).
Considering the provisions of the DVA and its broad legislative intent, we are satisfied there was sufficient credible
evidence in the record to sustain the court's factual and legal conclusion of the predicate offense of assault under
N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1a, and the finding that defendant committed an act of domestic violence against plaintiff meriting
the entry of an FRO. The events that evening were sufficient to justify the restraining order regardless of the lack of
prior domestic violence between the parties.
Affirmed.
(continued)
                                                                                                                          (continued)
5
                                                                                                                          A-5687-04T3
0x01 graphic
January 6, 2006
This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a5687-04.opn.html[4/20/2013 8:06:31 PM]

Download a5687-04.opn.pdf

New Jersey Law