Preview:

a2753-06.opn.html
Original Wordprocessor Version
(NOTE: The status of this decision is Unpublished.)
The status of this decision is unpublished
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(NOTE: The status of this decision is unpublished.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2753-06T22753-06T2
EVELINE BENNETT,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ARTHUR BENNETT,
Defendant-Appellant.
Submitted December 12, 2007 - Decided
Before Judges Collester and C.L. Miniman.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Family Part, Bergen
County, Docket No. FV-02-1159-07.
Fernando J. Jimenez, attorney for appellant.
Ellyn Freiberg Essig, attorney for respondent.
PER CURIAM
Defendant Arthur Bennett appeals from a final restraining order (FRO) entered on December 26, 2006, restraining
defendant from any contact with his wife, plaintiff Eveline Bennett. We affirm.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a2753-06.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:33:39 PM]




a2753-06.opn.html
On November 25, 2006, plaintiff signed a domestic violence complaint and received a temporary restraining order
prohibiting defendant from any contact with her as well as prohibiting him from plaintiff's residence, her place of
employment, and Ziggy's Tavern. In her complaint plaintiff alleged that defendant came to her residence on
November 23, 2006 and demanded entry. When she refused to talk with him, he began to kick the door. Plaintiff
held the door shut and called police on her cell phone. By the time the police arrived, defendant had left. Later that
night and the following day he left numerous messages on her phone including one in which he threatened to try
"to get her out of the country." Plaintiff further alleged that on September 16, 2006 she was physically assaulted by
defendant and sexually assaulted on September 27, 2006. After a three-day hearing, Judge John Langan of the
Family Part, Bergen County, rendered an oral decision in which he found that defendant had harassed plaintiff
contrary to the provisions of 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974). Moreover, we give deference to credibility determinations
made by the trial judge in determining whether the factual findings and legal conclusions could reasonably be
reached on the substantial credible evidence in the record. Furthermore, we give special deference to the
determinations of the Family Part judges because of their special knowledge on issues of domestic relations. Cesare
v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394, 412 (1998).
After careful review of the entire record in this case, we are satisfied that the judgment of the trial judge was based
on findings of fact which were adequately supported by the testimony and other evidence and that the arguments
made by defendant on appeal are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-
3(e)(1)(A)(E). We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Langan in his oral opinion of December 26,
2006.
Affirmed.
(continued)
(continued)
3
A-2753-06T2
RECORD IMPOUNDED
June 9, 2008
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a2753-06.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:33:39 PM]




a2753-06.opn.html
0x01 graphic
This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.
This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a2753-06.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:33:39 PM]

Download a2753-06.opn.pdf

New Jersey Law