C.E.G. v. R.P.G.

── C.E.G. v. R.P.G. ── Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General RECORD IMPOUNDED NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-3121-24 C.E.G.,1 Plaintiff-Respondent, v. R.P.G., Defendant-Appellant. _______________________ Submitted May 12, 2026 – Decided May 21, 2026 Before Judges Gooden Brown and Rosero. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Hudson County, Docket No. FV-09-2019-21. Miller and Miller, attorneys for appellant (David M. Miller and Michael S. Miller, on the brief). Respondent has not filed a brief. PER CURIAM 1 We use initials to protect the confidentiality of the record and the privacy interest of the parties. See R. 1:38-3(d)(10).  Defendant challenges the entry of a final restraining order (FRO) entered against him pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act (PDVA), N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35. He argues plaintiff unreasonably delayed the FRO hearing, thus, the doctrine of laches requires dismissal of the FRO; and that he was not provided notice of the FRO hearing, thus, the FRO should be vacated for a new hearing. Having reviewed the record in light of the applicable legal principles, we reverse and remand for a new FRO hearing before a different judge. Plaintiff and defendant dated from 2014 to 2021. On April 28, 2021, after a break-up, plaintiff filed a PDVA complaint alleging defendant committed acts of harassment on April 25, 2021. The court granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a final hearing was scheduled for May 10, 2021. The TRO noted defendant was hospitalized and on May 4, 2021, the TRO was served on defendant's father who indicated he would give it to defendant. On May 10, 2021, the court issued a continuance order due to defendant's unavailability. The order extended the TRO until defendant was "able to participate." For reasons that are not apparent from the record, there was no action on the FRO hearing until November 7, 2024, when the trial court entered a continuance order due to both parties' failure to appear. The order noted A-3121-24 2 defendant would "be served by law enf[orcement]" and the FRO hearing was scheduled for "TRY/DISMISS" on February 7, 2025. Another continuance order was entered on February 7, 2025, due to neither party appearing; the case was rescheduled to February 28, 2025. The court sent defendant notice of the February 28 hearing via certified mail to defendant's address in Reno, Nevada. The United States Postal Service (USPS) tracking information indicates the notice was marked "returned to sender" and delivered back to New Jersey on March 18, 2025. On February 28, 2025, a continuance order was entered due to neither party appearing. The order noted the "parties [were] not noticed," and the hearing was rescheduled to March 21, 2025. The court again sent defendant notice of the rescheduled hearing date via certified mail to defendant's Nevada address. According to the USPS tracking information, the notice was marked "returned to sender" on March 27, 2025, then "forward expired" on April 4; finally on April 14, it was returned to New Jersey. On March 21, 2025, a continua