Angelo Sarno’s Appellate Victory in PDVA Matter: Temporary Restraining Orders Reinstated and Case Remanded

Sarno da Costa D’Aniello Maceri Webb LLC is proud to share a significant appellate victory from Angelo Sarno on behalf of our client in a matter arising under New Jersey’s Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA). In a decision issued on March 24, 2026, the Appellate Division reversed the dissolution of amended temporary restraining orders (ATROs), ordered that those restraints be immediately reinstated, and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The court also directed that the plaintiff be permitted to amend the ATROs to include allegations contained in the previously denied February 24, 2025 TRO applications, and that the final restraining order hearing be scheduled within thirty days.

At the center of the appeal was whether the Family Part applied the proper legal standard when considering applications for temporary restraints under the PDVA. The Appellate Division emphasized that a TRO application is governed by a good cause standard and by whether relief is necessary to protect the life, health, or well-being of a victim and whether the applicant appears to be in danger of domestic violence. The court further explained that this standard is distinct from the heavier burden applicable at a final restraining order hearing, which is where the court must determine whether predicate acts have been established by a preponderance of the evidence.

In reversing the trial court, the Appellate Division found that the analysis below was too narrow and did not fully account for the breadth of the allegations presented. The court held that the judge made a mistake by focusing too heavily on the conduct of private investigators while failing to adequately consider additional allegations, including claims of financial coercion, unauthorized access to in-home cameras, access to personal records, and other alleged acts that the plaintiff contended supported with relief under the PDVA.

The Appellate Division also made clear that allegations of ongoing conduct do not, by themselves, defeat an application for temporary protection. To the contrary, the court reiterated that the PDVA is intended to assure victims “the maximum protection from abuse the law can provide,” and that the existence of other possible avenues of relief does not diminish the court’s responsibility to consider whether immediate protective relief is warranted under the statute.

Importantly, the court stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the ultimate merits of the underlying domestic violence allegations. Rather, its decision focused on ensuring that the plaintiff received the procedural protections afforded by law, including the opportunity to proceed with reinstated restraints and a prompt final hearing.

This matter reflects the importance of careful appellate advocacy in high-stakes family law cases, particularly where issues of safety, statutory interpretation, and access to judicial protection intersect. Angelo Sarno with Sarno da Costa D’Aniello Maceri Webb LLC is honored to have represented the appellant in this appeal.

Note: The opinion is marked “Not for Publication Without the Approval of the Appellate Division,” meaning it does not constitute binding precedent, although it is binding on the parties to the case.