Hamilton v. Ali
350 N.J. Super. 479, 795 A.2d 929 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
College dormitory suitemates who share common living areas and a bathroom, but not a bedroom, are considered 'household members' under New Jersey's Prevention of Domestic Violence Act and are therefore eligible for the Act's protections.
Facts:
- John Hamilton and Jason Ali were freshman undergraduate students at Monmouth University assigned by the school to a nine-student dormitory suite.
- The suite consisted of a large common area, a common bathroom, and four separate bedrooms, which the suitemates shared.
- Hamilton and Ali were suitemates, sharing access to the suite's common area and bathroom, but they occupied different bedrooms.
- Approximately one month into the semester, animosity developed between the two students.
- On October 20, 2001, Ali kicked in and damaged Hamilton's bedroom door while trying to get beer belonging to Hamilton's roommate.
- When Hamilton returned and confronted Ali about the damage, Ali put his finger to Hamilton's nose and slammed him against a wall, causing a bruise on Hamilton's hand.
Procedural Posture:
- John Hamilton, the plaintiff, filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Family Part, Monmouth County, seeking a final restraining order against defendant Jason Ali under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a college dormitory suitemate who shares a common area and bathroom with another student, but not a bedroom, qualify as a 'household member' under New Jersey's Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, thereby making them eligible for protection as a 'victim' under the Act?
Opinions:
Majority - LoCascio, J.S.C.
Yes, a college dormitory suitemate qualifies as a 'household member' under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act. The Act is intended to be liberally construed to protect victims in 'family or family-like' settings, and the term 'household member' is not limited to those who reside under the same roof in a traditional family unit. The court reasoned that the legislative intent was to expand the Act's coverage beyond cohabitants to anyone in a close relationship susceptible to domestic abuse. By applying the criteria from Desiato v. Abbott, the court found the suitemate relationship constituted a 'family-like setting' due to the constancy of the relationship (daily contact), shared living spaces (common area and bathroom), and shared property (furniture, television). Citing Storch v. Sauerhoff, the court emphasized that the key factor is whether the living situation places the plaintiff in a more susceptible position for abuse, which is true in a college suite where individuals have separate sleeping quarters but must interact on a frequent basis. Therefore, the relationship involved more than assaultive conduct between casual strangers and fell within the Act's jurisdiction.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadens the application of New Jersey's Prevention of Domestic Violence Act by extending the definition of 'household member' to include college suitemates in a dormitory setting. The decision establishes that the focus for determining jurisdiction under the Act is the functional nature of the living arrangement and the potential for abuse it creates, rather than the traditional notions of family, romantic involvement, or intent for permanence. This precedent makes it easier for individuals in non-traditional shared living situations, such as roommates or tenants with common areas, to seek protection from domestic violence. It reinforces the judicial principle of interpreting the Act's protective purpose as broadly as possible.
