Preview:

a4983-04.opn.html
N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35. Defendant, Brandon Zuk, appeals from a final restraining order entered on April 25, 2005.
He argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction; that its findings and conclusions were not adequately set out; that
the court erred in basing its decision on "prior acts not mentioned in the Temporary Restraining Order (and
disputed);" and that the findings underlying the decision were based on insufficient and improperly considered
evidence."> 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(NOTE: The status of this decision is unpublished.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4983-04T24983-04T2
KRISTA THOMPSON,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
BRANDON ZUK,
Defendant-Appellant.
Argued: October 31, 2006 - Decided June 13, 2007
Before Judges Kestin and Lihotz.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part,
Camden County, FV-04-002508-05.
John M. Amorison argued the cause for appellant.
Victoria L. Chase argued the cause for respondent (Rutgers Law Domestic Violence
Clinic, attorneys; Ruth Anne Robbins and Ms. Chase, of counsel and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
This matter arises from a complaint alleging a cause of action under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act,
N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35. Defendant, Brandon Zuk, appeals from a final restraining order entered on April 25, 2005.
He argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction; that its findings and conclusions were not adequately set out; that
the court erred in basing its decision on "prior acts not mentioned in the Temporary Restraining Order (and
disputed);" and that the findings underlying the decision were based on insufficient and improperly considered
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a4983-04.opn.html[4/20/2013 6:40:15 PM]




a4983-04.opn.html
evidence.
Having reviewed the record in the light of the written and oral arguments advanced by the parties and prevailing
legal standards, we conclude that none of the issues raised has sufficient merit to warrant extended discussion in a
written decision. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A),(E).
The assertion of jurisdiction was based upon the conceded dating relationship the parties once had. See N.J.S.A.
2C:25-19d. The history between the parties, including specific events established in the evidence, was not the basis
of the final restraining order, but rather was used by the court to develop an understanding of the parties' personal
relationship so that an appropriate evaluation of the allegations of the complaint could be made. See 154 N.J. 394,
411-13 (1998).
Affirmed.
(continued)
(continued)
3
A-4983-04T2
June 13, 2007
0x01 graphic
This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a4983-04.opn.html[4/20/2013 6:40:15 PM]

Download a4983-04.opn.pdf

New Jersey Law