Domestic violence harassment, under N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4, requires proof that the defendant acted with a purpose to annoy or alarm.  In Silva v. Ramos, the trial court issued a Final Restraining Order after finding that defendant knew or should have known that his conduct would upset or annoy the plaintiff.  The Appellate Court, however, held that a finding of knowing conduct does not satisfy the purposefulness requirement of N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4c. 

In that case, the plaintiff had put all of defendant’s belongings out in the streets, where some of the items were damaged by the weather.  When defendant arrived at the premises the following day, he banged on the windows and the doors of the house, repeatedly called defendant to come out, and made some vague verbal threats.  Plaintiff did not respond to his demands or to his phone calls.  Defendant then took a sledgehammer and smashed some of his own damaged property.  Thereafter, defendant took his belongings, left the premises, and called the local police to report the incident.  During trial, plaintiff stated that she did not call the police because “when he does things of this nature…she does not pay any attention to him.” 

“Integral to a finding of harassment under N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4c is the establishment of the purpose to harass," as well as "a course of alarming conduct or repeated acts intended to alarm or seriously annoy another." Peranio v. Peranio, 280 N.J. Super. 47, 55 (App. Div. 1995).  The Appellate Court found that defendant's purpose was not to harass plaintiff because his anger “was not specifically directed at plaintiff nor undertaken for the purpose of harassing her.  Rather, defendant's wrath was directed at objects he owned.”  Furthermore, plaintiff was not in the immediate proximity and was not in imminent danger of physical harm.