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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-0318-24
J.V.,1
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
D.V.,
Defendant-Appellant. __________________________
Argued December 11, 2025 ‒ Decided February 26, 2026
Before Judges Mawla and Bishop-Thompson.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Morris County, Docket No. FV-14-0703-24.
Robert D. Correale argued the cause for appellant (Brady & Correale LLP, attorneys; Robert D. Correale, on the briefs).
Eva M. Uhrik argued the cause for respondent (Edens Law Group, LLC, attorneys; Eva M. Uhrik, on the brief).
1 We use initials to protect domestic violence victims and witnesses. R. 1:38- 3(c)(12). PER CURIAM
Defendant D.V. appeals from the August 30, 2024 order, which denied his
motion for reconsideration and affirmed the reinstatement of the amended final
restraining order (FRO) in favor of plaintiff J.V. pursuant to the Prevention of
Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35. On appeal,
defendant contends: the interlocutory orders are a proper subject for review;
both the temporary restraining order (TRO) and the amended temporary
restraining order (ATRO) were improperly served; the Family Part judge erred
by conducting an FRO hearing after entry of default; the April 24, 2024 order
precluding him from cross-examining plaintiff at a FRO hearing violated his
constitutional rights; the doctrine of manifest injustice supersedes any claim
defendant acquiesced in the court's errors; the July 10, 2024 order granting
plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was an abuse of discretion; the August 30,
2024 order denying defendant's motion for reconsideration was an abuse of
discretion; and this matter should be remanded for a new FRO hearing. Having
reviewed the record and the applicable law, we affirm.
As the core issue before us concerns substituted service on defendant of
the TRO and ATRO, we limit our review to the salient facts relevant to that
issue. Plaintiff and defendant married in 2015 and have one minor child
A-0318-24 2 together. On January 8, 2024, plaintiff obtained a TRO against defendant
alleging assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(a)(1), and harassment, N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4. The
complaint stemmed from then-current and prior incidents of physical and verbal
abuse, intimidation, and coerced sexual acts. The parties' minor child was
present during two of the physical incidents.
The TRO scheduled the final hearing for January 16, 2024. On that date,
plaintiff appeared with counsel, while defendant failed to appear. The judge
engaged in a colloquy with the court staff regarding service. The judge was
informed police officers visited defendant's home six times, but defendant
refused to come to the door or outside. As it appeared defendant was actively
evading service, the judge, in an oral ruling, authorized substituted service by
directing police officers to affix a copy of the TRO and ATRO to defendant's
door, or alternatively, slide them under the door. However, a conforming order
was not immediately entered.
That same day, plaintiff amended the TRO to include additional incidents,
which occurred on January 8, as well as other prior acts of violence. The ATRO
was granted on January 16, 2024. The matter was scheduled for a final hearing
on January 30, 2024.
A-0318-24 3 In the late afternoon of January 26, 2024, police officers affixed the
documents in a clear plastic sheet protector to defendant's front door. The body-
worn camera video footage shows the kitchen was illuminated and defendant's
vehicle was parked in the driveway.
A different judge presided over the scheduled hearing on January 30,
2024. The judge noted defendant failed to appear or contact the court; default
was entered. Plaintiff appeared with counsel and recounted the incidents alleged
in the TRO and ATRO.
After hearing plaintiff's testimony, the judge issued an oral opinion. He
found plaintiff credible and determined she had proven the predicate acts of
harassment and assault by a preponderance of the evidence. He also found a
restraining order was necessary based on the prior acts of violence. The judge
entered an FRO, finding plaintiff satisfied both prongs of Silver v. Silver, 387
N.J. Super. 112, 125-27 (App. Div. 2006). The body worn camera footage
shows on February 9, 2024, defendant was personally served with the FRO at
his home.
Defendant subsequently retained counsel and, on February 26, 2024,
moved to vacate the FRO on the grounds of lack of service, lack of notice, and
violation of due process. Plaintiff opposed the motion. The same judge who
A-0318-24 4 presided over the FRO hearing also presided over the motion hearing. In the
April 24, 2024 order, the judge vacated the FRO and conditionally reinstated the
ATRO. The order also provided at any upcoming FRO hearing, "[p]laintiff shall
not be required to re-testify or to appear as she ha[d] already provided testimony
to the [c]ourt on January 30, 2024."
That same day, the initial judge entered a separate order memorializing
his prior authorization for substituted service. The court deemed defendant was
properly served, provided service of the ATRO was effected prior to the January
30, 2024 hearing date; and further found defendant had "sufficient notice" of
both the complaint and FRO scheduled for January 30, 2024. The judge
determined the substituted service of process and notice of hearing "not [to] be
in violation of due process of law, nor of the [r]ules of [court] . . . under the
totality of the circumstances" because the methods of service were "'reasonably
calculated . . . to apprise [d]efendant[] of the [FRO] and afford[ed] [d]efendant[]
an opportunity to present [his] objection.' O'Connor v. Altus, 67 N.J. 106, 126
(1975) (quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr[.] Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314
(1950))."
Plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the April 24, 2024 order.
Defendant opposed the motion and cross-moved on issues not germane to this
A-0318-24 5 appeal. On July 10, 2024, following the hearing at which both parties appeared
with counsel, the second judge granted plaintiff's motion for reconsideration,
reinstated and upheld the FRO, and ordered plaintiff to return the counsel fees
previously awarded.
Defendant then moved to reconsider the July 10, 2024 order, which
plaintiff opposed. Following the hearing on August 30, 2024, the second judge
denied defendant's motion for reconsideration, affirmed the reinstatement of the
FRO, held all interlocutory matters moot, and denied further relief.
Our scope of review of Family Part orders is limited. Gormley v.
Gormley, 462 N.J. Super. 433, 442 (App. Div. 2019). "We accord substantial
deference to Family Part judges, who routinely hear domestic violence cases and
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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-0318-24
J.V.,1
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
D.V.,
Defendant-Appellant. __________________________
Argued December 11, 2025 ‒ Decided February 26, 2026
Before Judges Mawla and Bishop-Thompson.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Morris County, Docket No. FV-14-0703-24.
Robert D. Correale argued the cause for appellant (Brady & Correale LLP, attorneys; Robert D. Correale, on the briefs).
Eva M. Uhrik argued the cause for respondent (Edens Law Group, LLC, attorneys; Eva M. Uhrik, on the brief).
1 We use initials to protect domestic violence victims and witnesses. R. 1:38- 3(c)(12). PER CURIAM
Defendant D.V. appeals from the August 30, 2024 order, which denied his
motion for reconsideration and affirmed the reinstatement of the amended final
restraining order (FRO) in favor of plaintiff J.V. pursuant to the Prevention of
Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35. On appeal,
defendant contends: the interlocutory orders are a proper subject for review;
both the temporary restraining order (TRO) and the amended temporary
restraining order (ATRO) were improperly served; the Family Part judge erred
by conducting an FRO hearing after entry of default; the April 24, 2024 order
precluding him from cross-examining plaintiff at a FRO hearing violated his
constitutional rights; the doctrine of manifest injustice supersedes any claim
defendant acquiesced in the court's errors; the July 10, 2024 order granting
plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was an abuse of discretion; the August 30,
2024 order denying defendant's motion for reconsideration was an abuse of
discretion; and this matter should be remanded for a new FRO hearing. Having
reviewed the record and the applicable law, we affirm.
As the core issue before us concerns substituted service on defendant of
the TRO and ATRO, we limit our review to the salient facts relevant to that
issue. Plaintiff and defendant married in 2015 and have one minor child
A-0318-24 2 together. On January 8, 2024, plaintiff obtained a TRO against defendant
alleging assault, N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(a)(1), and harassment, N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4. The
complaint stemmed from then-current and prior incidents of physical and verbal
abuse, intimidation, and coerced sexual acts. The parties' minor child was
present during two of the physical incidents.
The TRO scheduled the final hearing for January 16, 2024. On that date,
plaintiff appeared with counsel, while defendant failed to appear. The judge
engaged in a colloquy with the court staff regarding service. The judge was
informed police officers visited defendant's home six times, but defendant
refused to come to the door or outside. As it appeared defendant was actively
evading service, the judge, in an oral ruling, authorized substituted service by
directing police officers to affix a copy of the TRO and ATRO to defendant's
door, or alternatively, slide them under the door. However, a conforming order
was not immediately entered.
That same day, plaintiff amended the TRO to include additional incidents,
which occurred on January 8, as well as other prior acts of violence. The ATRO
was granted on January 16, 2024. The matter was scheduled for a final hearing
on January 30, 2024.
A-0318-24 3 In the late afternoon of January 26, 2024, police officers affixed the
documents in a clear plastic sheet protector to defendant's front door. The body-
worn camera video footage shows the kitchen was illuminated and defendant's
vehicle was parked in the driveway.
A different judge presided over the scheduled hearing on January 30,
2024. The judge noted defendant failed to appear or contact the court; default
was entered. Plaintiff appeared with counsel and recounted the incidents alleged
in the TRO and ATRO.
After hearing plaintiff's testimony, the judge issued an oral opinion. He
found plaintiff credible and determined she had proven the predicate acts of
harassment and assault by a preponderance of the evidence. He also found a
restraining order was necessary based on the prior acts of violence. The judge
entered an FRO, finding plaintiff satisfied both prongs of Silver v. Silver, 387
N.J. Super. 112, 125-27 (App. Div. 2006). The body worn camera footage
shows on February 9, 2024, defendant was personally served with the FRO at
his home.
Defendant subsequently retained counsel and, on February 26, 2024,
moved to vacate the FRO on the grounds of lack of service, lack of notice, and
violation of due process. Plaintiff opposed the motion. The same judge who
A-0318-24 4 presided over the FRO hearing also presided over the motion hearing. In the
April 24, 2024 order, the judge vacated the FRO and conditionally reinstated the
ATRO. The order also provided at any upcoming FRO hearing, "[p]laintiff shall
not be required to re-testify or to appear as she ha[d] already provided testimony
to the [c]ourt on January 30, 2024."
That same day, the initial judge entered a separate order memorializing
his prior authorization for substituted service. The court deemed defendant was
properly served, provided service of the ATRO was effected prior to the January
30, 2024 hearing date; and further found defendant had "sufficient notice" of
both the complaint and FRO scheduled for January 30, 2024. The judge
determined the substituted service of process and notice of hearing "not [to] be
in violation of due process of law, nor of the [r]ules of [court] . . . under the
totality of the circumstances" because the methods of service were "'reasonably
calculated . . . to apprise [d]efendant[] of the [FRO] and afford[ed] [d]efendant[]
an opportunity to present [his] objection.' O'Connor v. Altus, 67 N.J. 106, 126
(1975) (quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr[.] Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314
(1950))."
Plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the April 24, 2024 order.
Defendant opposed the motion and cross-moved on issues not germane to this
A-0318-24 5 appeal. On July 10, 2024, following the hearing at which both parties appeared
with counsel, the second judge granted plaintiff's motion for reconsideration,
reinstated and upheld the FRO, and ordered plaintiff to return the counsel fees
previously awarded.
Defendant then moved to reconsider the July 10, 2024 order, which
plaintiff opposed. Following the hearing on August 30, 2024, the second judge
denied defendant's motion for reconsideration, affirmed the reinstatement of the
FRO, held all interlocutory matters moot, and denied further relief.
Our scope of review of Family Part orders is limited. Gormley v.
Gormley, 462 N.J. Super. 433, 442 (App. Div. 2019). "We accord substantial
deference to Family Part judges, who routinely hear domestic violence cases and
are 'specially trained to detect the difference between domestic violence and
more ordinary differences that arise between couples. '" C.C. v. J.A.H., 463 N.J.
Super. 419, 428 (App. Div. 2020) (quoting J.D. v. M.D.F., 207 N.J. 458, 482
(2011)). Consequently, findings by a judge "are binding on appeal when
supported by adequate, substantial, credible evidence." Cesare v. Cesare, 154
N.J. 394, 411-12 (1998). However, legal conclusions and the interpretation of
statutes or the application of legal standards are reviewed de novo. Thieme v.
Aucoin-Thieme, 227 N.J. 269, 283 (2016).
A-0318-24 6 Defendant presents multiple arguments on appeal; however, we consider
only the dispositive issue concerning substituted service under the PDVA.
Having reviewed the record, we conclude substituted service was properly made
on defendant.
We have long recognized "[d]ue process is a fundamental right accorded
to both parties under the PDVA." T.M.S. v. W.C.P. 450 N.J. Super 499, 505
(App. Div. 2017). This principle is particularly significant where a defendant
faces the possibility of the entry of an FRO. See A.A.R. v. J.R.C., 471 N.J.
Super. 584, 586 (App. Div. 2022). Thus, service of process is "[a]n elementary
and fundamental requirement of due process." O'Connor, 67 N.J. at 126
(quoting Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314).
The PDVA generally requires personal service of a TRO upon a defendant
by police officers. N.J.S.A. 2C:25-28(l). However, it also recognizes situations
where a defendant attempts to avoid personal service. Under N.J.S.A. 2C:25-
28(l), the court may authorize substituted service if personal service cannot be
effected under Rule 4:4-4. If none of these methods work, Rule 4:4-4(b)(3)
allows the court to order an alternative method consistent with due process. See
Pressler & Verniero, Current N.J. Court Rules, cmt. 3.3.1 on R. 4:4-4 (2026).
A-0318-24 7 We reject defendant's challenge to the substituted service of both the TRO
and ATRO. Defendant relies solely on N.J.S.A. 2C:25-28(l)2 and
misapprehends Rule 4:4-4(b)(3). We likewise reject defendant's challenge to
both the second judge's motion hearing oral ruling on April 5, 2024, and the
initial judge's April 24, 2024 order, finding defendant was properly served.
Defendant's claims are contradicted by the record, which shows personal
service was pursued diligently and documented in detail. Body-worn camera
video footage shows police made multiple attempts to serve the initial TRO on
defendant's home on January 8, 9, 10, and 11, 2024, at various times. Each time,
officers observed signs defendant was home—including lights, a running
television, and his vehicle in the driveway. Yet, defendant consistently refused
to answer the door or accept service.
Body-worn camera video footage confirms defendant was home on the
evening of January 26, 2024. After officers rang the doorbell, defendant ran
inside and did not respond. Following the court's ruling permitting substituted
service, officers affixed the documents—enclosed in a plastic sheet protector—
to the front door.
2 Defendant incorrectly identifies the statute as "N.J.S.A. 2C:75-28(l)" in his merits brief. A-0318-24 8 Guided by these principles, service of the TRO and ATRO orders upon
defendant comported with both the PDVA, the New Jersey Domestic Violence
Procedures Manual 20223 regarding substituted service, and the court rules. The
record shows defendant actively evaded service. As a result, the judge properly
authorized substituted service by attaching the TRO and ATRO to the front door,
a permissible method outside those listed in Rule 4:4-4(a)(1) to (9). After
consideration of the record, we conclude the judge properly exercised its
discretion in authorizing substituted service on January 16, 2024, and April 24,
2024, consistent with due process.
Defendant's argument concerning lack of notice of the FRO is unavailing.
The record also shows defendant was apprised of the scheduled January 30, 2024
FRO hearing date. He received the TRO and ATRO by email, sent to the email
address he used every day. See K.A. v. J.L., 450 N.J. Super. 247, 252-53 (Ch.
Div. 2016) (permitting by court order service of process via Facebook where
attempts to serve defendant by mail proved unsuccessful because mail was not
deliverable to only address known to plaintiff).
3 The New Jersey Domestic Violence Procedures Manual 2022 operates as the policy and procedure reference guide for the courts and law enforcement. N.J. Cts., New Jersey Domestic Violence Procedures Manual § IV (2022), https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/courts/family/dvprcman.pdf. A-0318-24 9 We also note in his certification, defendant acknowledged:
On January 26, 2024, [he] receive[d] a telephone message from a person [he] believe[d] to be [the judge's] law clerk in which [he] was told to appear in court the next day for a [d]omestic [v]iolence [h]earing . . . , [or] it could have been January 28th or sometime late at night on January 29th.
Instead of appearing in court to contest service, he chose not to attend. Any due
process argument is not supported by the facts present here as defendant had
actual notice of the scheduled FRO hearing date and an opportunity to be heard.
To the extent we have not addressed any of defendant's remaining
arguments, we are satisfied they lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a
written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-0318-24 10