SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
CHANCERY DIVISION - FAMILY PART
UNION COUNTY
DOCKET NO. FV-20-66-20
APP. DIV.
__________________________
:
:
:
Plaintiff, :
:
vs.
:
:
KAMRIN MOORE,
:
:
Defendant. :
__________________________:

TRANSCRIPT
OF
FINAL RESTRAINING ORDER
COURT DECISION

Place: Union County Courthouse
2 Broad Street
Elizabeth, N.J. 07207
Date: August 14, 2019
BEFORE:
THE HONORABLE FREDERIC R. MCDANIEL, J.S.C.
TRANSCRIPT ORDERED BY:
JAMES A. ABATE, ESQ., (Law Offices of James A. Abate)
APPEARANCES:
PATRICIA GARRITY-SMITS, ESQ., (Patricia Garrity
Smits, LLC),
Attorney for the Defendant.
JAMES A. ABATE, ESQ., (Law Offices of James A. Abate),
Attorney for the Defendant.

Audio Recorded By: A. Melillo
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
METRO TRANSCRIPTS, L.L.C.
Kelly Ford
15 Mountain View Drive
Andover, New Jersey 07821
(973) 659-9494
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

I N D E X
8/14/19
DECISION
By the Court

Page
3

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

(Begin requested excerpt at 4:56:42 p.m.)
THE COURT: All right. So this, as I began
at the very start of the hearing, is a final
restraining order in which the plaintiff,
alleges that the defendant, Kamrin Moore, committed an
act of domestic violence against her. Specifically her
complaint alleges assault.
As I explained at the outset, the plaintiff
has the burden of proving that Mr. Moore committed an
act of domestic violence/assault against her,
specifically on July 11th, 2019.
So first of all the definition of assault.
It's found in our New Jersey penal code at NJS 2C:12-1.
And it states that a person is guilty of assault if,
one, it's in three parts, one, a person attempts to
cause or purposely, knowingly, or recklessly causes
bodily injury to another.
Two does not apply in this particular case
because there's no allegation of the use of a deadly
weapon.
Part three, however, states that if a person
attempts by physical menace to put another in fear of
imminent serious bodily injury, you could find assault.
Serious bodily injury means bodily injury, which can be
physical pain, illness, or impairment of a physical

 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

condition and which creates a substantial risk of death
or which causes serious permanent disfigurement or
protracted loss or impairment of the function of any
bodily member or organ.
The allegation by plaintiff here is that on
July the 11th she went to the defendant's home in
Linden, New Jersey. The plaintiff resides in
Massachusetts. She testified that she
traveled from Massachusetts first to, I believe, New
York, perhaps Staten Island, to visit a friend. And
that later that evening she contacted the defendant to
tell him that she was in the area and was going to
visit him.
The defendant, by text, told her not to go by
his home. Through direct and cross-examination the
plaintiff's testimony that she did anyway, failing to
offer any reason why she decided to ignore the
defendant's request, she arrived at his home and
attempted to text him that she was now there. He did
not respond. She texted him again asking why all of
his lights were off. He did not respond. She texted
again claiming that she, quote, "had to pee." Again,
the defendant did not respond.
She testified that eventually a woman
approached her car. That the plaintiff got out of the

5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

car and that the two immediately began to fight. It
was a physical fight.
She testified that the defendant came
outside. He was running toward them and that while she
was on the ground, he put his foot on her neck. She
also testified that she was kicked in the face by the
defendant's girlfriend.
She testified that when she says to the
defendant, quote, "You know what you did," he punched
her in the side of the face, rending her -- rendering
her unconscious or at least semi-unconscious.
On cross-examination the plaintiff testified
that she does not remember telling police or the judge
that defendant told her not to come. She also admitted
to contacting the defendant twice after she received
the temporary restraining order.
She admitted that she had received messages
from the defendant prior to July the 11th, 2019,
including his imploring her to, quote, "Go away," and
telling her that he will get her arrested if she tries
to see him.
She also admitted to making numerous attempts
to contact him after being blocked by using multiple
phone numbers to contact him after he asked for no more
contact.

 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

When asked on cross-examination about who had
caused her certain injuries, she responded with
different answers; not the defendant, not sure, don't
know, or it was the defendant's girlfriend. She never
testifies that the defendant caused her injuries.
The plaintiff's witness, while seemingly
credible because she's calm and seems pretty much
straightforward, she contradicts the plaintiff and that
is, I believe, a very important key.
The defendant testified that he had asked the
plaintiff to leave him alone previously, but that she
continued to attempt to contact him, even using
nefarious means to do so such as attempting to
circumvent the defendant's efforts to block her
communications. I do note, however, that even though
the defendant has testified that he tried on numerous
occasions to get her to leave him alone, that as recent
as a week before, he saw her in Massachusetts. So
there are aspects of his conduct that I find wonting.
On one occasion the defendant drove the
plaintiff to -- to Jersey City from Linden after she
had spent the night with him in Linden in order to get
her away from him apparently. Upon arrival in Jersey
City, the defendant began the video of the event
wherein the plaintiff refused to exit the defendant's

7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

car. The video shows the defendant pleading with the
plaintiff to get out and to leave. The plaintiff's
reaction can only be described as pathetically
juvenile. She's laughing, she's cursing, she's mocking
the defendant, and it was typical stalking or
harassing-type behavior by a person who refuses to
acknowledge that the other person does not wish to
continue in a true relationship.
As to July the 11th, 2019, the defendant
testified that the plaintiff showed up at his home
unwanted and that she would not leave. That he became
concerned because his girlfriend was due to arrive from
work. He testified that he purposely avoided going
outside to see or confront her and that he was afraid
she would enter through an open garage door if he
attempted to leave.
He testified that from his window he -- he
observed the plaintiff, quote, "charge his girlfriend
and punch her." He testified that he ran outside to
protect his girlfriend and attempted to break up the
fight. He also testified that they were on the ground
fighting and that both had a handful of the other's
hair.
He described using his body to, quote, "pry
them apart," and denies ever stepping on the

 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

plaintiff's neck or striking her in the face.
He testified that his girlfriend did kick the
plaintiff at some point in time and testified that the
injuries reflected in photos of the plaintiff were
caused by his girlfriend during the fight between the
two. He testified that his girlfriend also suffered
injuries, which were presented through photos.
The defendant's witness was his girlfriend at
the time, Noelle Williams. She testified that she came
home to the defendant's home, and she knew from the
defendant that the plaintiff was there. She says that
the defendant told her that the plaintiff was there.
Upon arrival she states she confronted the plaintiff,
and then a fight ensued. It stopped, and it started
again. She takes full responsibility for the injuries
that the plaintiff suffered resulting from the fight
between the two.
As I stated previously, the plaintiff has the
burden of proving by a preponderance of the credible
evidence that the defendant assaulted her on July the
11th. This Court concludes that the plaintiff failed
to do so.
First of all, the Court finds that the
plaintiff lacks some credibility. By her own admission
she has attempted on numerous occasions to thwart the

9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

defendant's efforts to end any relationship between the
two. Her conduct both before the July 11th episode and
after the issuance of a temporary restraining order
paint a picture of the plaintiff as a manipulative,
jilted ex-girlfriend, engaging in inappropriate conduct
aimed at the defendant to either punish his decision to
end their relationship, or it's a bizarre attempt to
get him back in a manner ill-advised but common amongst
unreasonable jilted paramours. It is consistent with
her prior explanation that she will ruin his life.
The list of factors present that reflect on
the plaintiff's credibility are as follows. One, is
her claim that a week prior the defendant engaged in
conduct with her in Massachusetts -- Massachusetts,
which she said caused her to be threatened at gunpoint.
While she signed her complaint stating that there was
no history of domestic violence, she, here in court,
claimed that the defendant caused her to be robbed and
that that conduct was domestic violence committed by
the defendant against her.
She also claimed that she found a picture in
her home in Massachusetts that somehow connected the
defendant to the person who she believes committed the
robbery. It was incredible, misplaced, and undermines
her claim that a week later she decides to pay him a

 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

surprise visit, which somehow the defendant would
welcome.
Number two, the video of the plaintiff
refusing to exit the defendant's car shows an immature,
unreasonable, again, jilted ex-girlfriend attempting to
use childish conduct to avoid being rejected by the
defendant.
Three, the plaintiff's decision to drive from
Massachusetts to New York and then to New Jersey to see
the defendant portrays her again as unreasonable and
capable of exercising bad judgment.
Four, her refusal to leave his home, an
attempt to compel him to see her is more of the same.
Five, the fact that she immediately left New
Jersey without contacting the police but then returned
two days later somewhat undermines her case, given
consideration of all the facts because that alone would
not necessarily call her conduct into question. Many
domestic violence victims do not report immediately.
But when I look at those circumstances, with all other
factors, it does call her conduct into question.
Six, her testimony was that she doesn't
remember him hitting her, but her statement was he
punched her in -- with a fist in the face. I find that
to be a contradiction.

11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Seven, the fact that she contacted the
defendant twice after obtaining a temporary restraining
order undermines her claim that she is fearful of the
defendant. Someone who is afraid of the other person
would not, at least a normal person, seek that person
out by phone call or text messages knowing that there's
a restraining order in place.
Eight, her claim that she fears that the
defendant might hire or get someone to go to
Massachusetts to harm her is not objectively
reasonable. It appears to be a weak attempt to
convince the Court that there is a reasonable fear even
though they are miles apart. And, again, contacting
the -- the defendant undermines that position.
Nine, overall the plaintiff's demeanor
sometimes affects credibility. Her responses, her
facial expressions, her constant shaking and rocking in
her chair as she gave answers to questions, her legs
and her body moving. She couldn't keep still. She was
smiling. She was -- she had a snide look on her face.
These are all examples of demeanor that the Court is
allowed to consider when it considers whether or not a
person is credible. She asked rhetorical questions to
Counsel as well. It was consistent and certainly made
sense based upon corroborating evidence such as emails,

 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

texts, video, and -- and his witness as to that
credibility.
Ten, the plaintiff's witness was not
consistent with the plaintiff's testimony. As I said
before, she seemed to be a somewhat credible
individual, but it just seemed that she was perhaps
supporting her girlfriend at a time that she felt she
was in need. That is important. It's not a small
thing that the plaintiff said I never had an
opportunity to call the defendant on my way because I
was driving. Never had the opportunity. And asked the
question if she ever stopped for food or gas or the
bathroom, I detected that wee pause before she decided
to finally say nope, never stopped, contrary to the
testimony of her girlfriend.
So with respect to establishing the predicate
offense of assault, I find that there is not sufficient
proof by a preponderance of the evidence to do so, no
predicate act. I find that it cannot be found through
the examination of any prior history to help establish
that since there was no prior history of domestic
violence. And I find that an examination of the second
prong that's cited in Silver v. Silver, the plaintiff,
although she claims fear based upon the fact that she
believes he might send someone to harm her, is not in

13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

any immediate danger from the defendant to property -to person or property.
So for all those reasons, the Court is
compelled to dismiss the plaintiff's domestic violence
complaint and corresponding temporary restraining
order.
She has 45 days? Is it 30 or 45?
THE COURT CLERK: Thirty.
THE COURT: Forty-five?
THE COURT CLERK: Thirty, not 45.
THE COURT: Thirty days to appeal.
THE COURT CLERK: To appeal it is 45 days.
THE COURT: Forty-five days.
THE COURT CLERK: If it's for reconsideration
it's 20.
THE COURT: Well, if -- if Counsel wants a
motion for reconsideration she'll have to go to the
rule book to determine how long that would require.
All right. For both parties I am signing an
order of dismissal. You are going to get a copy of
that so you can't leave until you do get a copy.
(Requested excerpt concluded at 5:14:57)

 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

CERTIFICATION
I, Kelly Ford, the assigned transcriber, do
hereby certify that the foregoing transcript of
proceedings in the Union County Superior Court,
Chancery Division, digitally recorded on August 14,
2019, Index No., 4:56:42 to 5:14:57 is prepared in full
compliance with the current Transcript Format for
Judicial Proceedings and is a true and accurate
compressed transcript of the proceedings as recorded.

KELLY FORD AD/T #561
METRO TRANSCRIPTS, L.L.C.
Date: 8/15/19