In another decision stemming from a domestic violence case, the court reaffirmed the legal principle that when contested facts are presented to the court, a plenary hearing must be conducted when the certifications and supporting exhibits do not resolve the facts in dispute.\u00a0 While this decision came from a domestic violence case, the logic and requirements apply to all family court motions.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
FAMILY LAW<\/strong> 20-2-9847 J.M.F. v. G.M.F., <\/em>App. Div. (per curiam) (8 pp.) Defendant G.M.F. appeals from the Family Part order denying his motion to dissolve a final restraining order (FRO) entered against him on a domestic violence complaint filed by his former wife, plaintiff J.M.F., pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act. The appellate panel reverses and remands for a plenary hearing. The assertions made by defendant in his moving papers were sufficient to provide prima facie support to dissolve the FRO for good cause under the Act. The material facts as to the ongoing need for restraints were sharply disputed in plaintiff’s submitted papers. In turn, defendant refuted the contentions of plaintiff in his reply certification. The issue of plaintiff’s fear, and defendant’s control and dominion over plaintiff need to be explored at the plenary hearing.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In another decision stemming from a domestic violence case, the court reaffirmed the legal principle that when contested facts are presented to the court, a plenary hearing must be conducted when the certifications and supporting exhibits do not resolve the … Continue reading