## Facts

- Former spouses married in 1993 and divorced after allegations of extreme cruelty.
- The plaintiff obtained multiple temporary restraining orders alleging defendant’s harassment and a pattern of domestic violence, including threats, property destruction, and intimidation in front of their children.
- After one early domestic-violence complaint was dismissed and a restraining order vacated, further domestic-violence proceedings occurred and restraints were again sought based on continued incidents (e.g., persistent calls, unannounced appearances, banging on doors, and intimidation).
- While litigation was pending and against the backdrop of prior restraints and allegations, the defendant rented and moved into a home in the plaintiff’s neighborhood, in a location enabling observation of her home.
- The plaintiff moved to bar the defendant from renting or moving into that home, asserting the move was a continuation of stalking and harassment.
- After a hearing, the trial court found the defendant had a history of stalking and harassing the plaintiff and that his purpose in moving nearby was to continue that conduct.
- The trial court ordered the defendant to vacate the rental home and move out of the neighborhood within thirty days.
- The defendant appealed, arguing the court lacked authority under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA) to compel him to move from a lawfully rented residence.

## Issues

1. Whether the PDVA authorizes a court to order a defendant already subject to domestic-violence restraints to vacate a rented residence in the victim’s neighborhood when the relocation is found to be part of continued stalking or harassment.
2. Whether such a move-out order is a permissible protective remedy under the PDVA rather than an impermissible punitive or overbroad geographic restriction.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed the order requiring the defendant to move out of the rental home and out of the neighborhood within thirty days.
- The court held the PDVA confers broad remedial authority to craft protective relief based on the parties’ history and the need to prevent further abuse.
- The court accepted the trial court’s factual finding that the defendant moved into the neighborhood to continue harassment and stalking.
- The court characterized the relief as narrowly tailored to protection: it targeted a specific residence and immediate neighborhood rather than imposing a sweeping exclusion from a larger area.

## Legal Principles

- Under the PDVA, courts may grant protective relief necessary to provide maximum protection from domestic abuse, including conditions that incidentally restrict a defendant’s residential choices when justified by prevention needs.
- In determining whether harassment occurred and what remedy is appropriate, courts must consider the parties’ prior history of domestic violence, including threats, harassment, and physical abuse. N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(a)(1).
- A defendant’s conduct that is facially lawful (e.g., renting a home) may still support protective relief when the court finds it is used as a means to continue stalking or harassment.
- Appellate review gives substantial deference to domestic-violence fact-finding and credibility determinations when supported by the record.
- Geographic or residency-related restrictions are permissible under the PDVA when tailored to the circumstances and necessary to prevent ongoing abuse.

## Conclusion

The Appellate Division upheld an order compelling a restrained defendant to leave a rental home in the victim’s neighborhood because the PDVA authorizes tailored protective remedies based on domestic-violence history and supported findings that proximity was used to continue stalking and harassment.


Zappaunbulso v. Zappaunbulso, 367 N.J. Super. 216 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2004)