L.T. VS. F.M.
A-2422-12T1
Plaintiff obtained a final restraining order (FRO) against
defendant in the Family Part and subsequently brought an action
in the Law Division seeking to recover damages for injuries
allegedly inflicted upon her by defendant in the assaults that
were the subject of the Family Part proceedings. In this
appeal, we address the issue of whether defendant was
collaterally estopped from arguing in the Law Division action
that he did not assault plaintiff. We also consider whether
evidence of a prior alleged assault that was not raised in
plaintiff's complaint was admissible as habit evidence, and
whether plaintiff should have been permitted to introduce the
FRO into evidence. Based upon our review of the record and
applicable law, we hold that the doctrine of collateral estoppel
did not bar defendant from challenging plaintiff's claims in the
Law Division action. We also hold that evidence of the prior
alleged assault and the FRO should not have been admitted into
evidence. Therefore, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
