The branch of New Jersey’s Domestic Violence law dealing with harassment got further explanation by the Appellate Division this week in C.C. v. T.R. The Defendant tried to avail himself of the earlier Appellate Division case, E.D. v. P.D., in which the Appellate Division overturned a Final Restraining Order for harassment where the conduct (leaving belligerent messages and calls at the plaintiff’s work, name-calling and giving the finger) amounted only to a “domestic contretemps” and was not sufficient to make out a complaint of harassment. In this case, however, the Appellate Division found that the defendant’s conduct - sending a large number of alarming text messages in a short period of time, entering plaintiff’s home without permission, threatening to report her to various agencies, accessing her laptop, and hiring a detective to follow her - was for the purpose of intimidating and harassing plaintiff.
Where exactly does the line lie between a domestic contretemps and actionable harassment? E.D. obviously had not crossed the line, while C.C. had. The quality of the behavior in C.C. appears significantly more intrusive, threatening and disruptive to the plaintiff’s life than that in E.D., suggesting a rule of thumb.
C. Megan Oltman
Call us with more questions at 732-438-3880 or visit our web site at www.strichlaw.com.
Disclaimer: Any and all information contained on this site is for informational purposes, and should not be utilized as a substitute for a full, in-person consultation with a lawyer in your State and familiar with your circumstances. Strich Law Firm, P.C. assumes no responsibility for any information contained on this site, and disclaims all liability in respect of such information. In addition, no part of this site shall be deemed to form any contract between Strich Law Firm, P.C. , and anyone viewing this site.
