A.E.H. v. K.H., A-3567-10T4. (2012)
Court: Superior Court of New Jersey
Number: innjco20120215353
Visitors: 17
Filed: Feb. 15, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 15, 2012
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals from a final domestic violence restraining order entered against her on February 8, 2011. Plaintiff has filed a cross-appeal that challenges certain of the trial court's factual findings. That cross-appeal was unnecessary because appeals are taken solely from judgments, not from the factual findings and conclusions of law that underlie a judgment, and a respondent can argue any point on appeal to sustain the judgment of the lower court. See Do
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals from a final domestic violence restraining order entered against her on February 8, 2011. Plaintiff has filed a cross-appeal that challenges certain of the trial court's factual findings. That cross-appeal was unnecessary because appeals are taken solely from judgments, not from the factual findings and conclusions of law that underlie a judgment, and a respondent can argue any point on appeal to sustain the judgment of the lower court. See Do-..
More
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals from a final domestic violence restraining order entered against her on February 8, 2011. Plaintiff has filed a cross-appeal that challenges certain of the trial court's factual findings. That cross-appeal was unnecessary because appeals are taken solely from judgments, not from the factual findings and conclusions of law that underlie a judgment, and a respondent can argue any point on appeal to sustain the judgment of the lower court. See Do-Wop Corp. v. City of Rahway, 168 N.J. 191, 199 (2001); Chimes v. Oritani Motor Hotel, Inc., 195 N.J.Super. 435, 443 (App. Div. 1984).
We reject the arguments defendant presents in support of her appeal and affirm the final domestic violence restraining order substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Weisberg's February 9, 2011 oral opinion. It is unnecessary to consider plaintiff's argument that Judge Weisberg erred in concluding that plaintiff failed to prove that defendant committed the predicate acts of criminal mischief and harassment because the predicate act of burglary that Judge Weisberg found defendant had committed and the history of domestic violence provided a sufficient foundation for entry of the final domestic violence restraining order.
Affirmed.
Source: Leagle
