Judge Conducts TERPO Hearing in Hackensack and Dismisses Case

The Tormey Law Firm represented a client residing in Bergen County, New Jersey who was charged on September 1, 2025, with allegedly violating N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(b)(2) by committing aggravated assault in the Third Degree, a felony that had the client been convicted would be facing up to 3 to 5 years in New Jersey State Prison and up to a $15,000.00 fine. In addition, our client became subject to a Temporary Extreme Risk Protective Order (TERPO), where it was alleged that they would present a significant risk of committing bodily injury to themselves or others by having access to firearms. As a result, our client’s lawfully obtained, lawfully purchased firearm was taken for safekeeping by the Hackensack Police Department.

Shortly thereafter,  the Bergen County Prosecutor’s office remanded, or downgraded the case from Aggravated Assault to Simple Assault in violation of N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1(a)(1), a misdemeanor/Disorderly Persons Offense, transferring the case from Superior Court to Municipal Court in Hackensack. This was a major development as the client was facing a felony charge and years in prison and now was facing a misdemeanor charge with a maximum exposure of six (6) months in the county jail.

On October 22, 2025, after receiving and reviewing the discovery provided to our office by the Prosecutor’s Office, Judge Takhvonian, J.M.C., in the Hackensack Municipal Court dismissed our client’s criminal charge and granted an expedited expungement to clear his criminal charge.

Upon dismissal of the criminal matter, our client appeared in Bergen County Superior Court, Criminal Division, before Judge Doyle, J.M.C., on November 18, 2025, for a bench trial to determine whether our client would be subject to a Final Extreme Risk Protective Order (FERPO). The Prosecutor’s office had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence (that it was more likely than not) that our client poses a significant risk of committing bodily harm to himself or others by having access to firearms.

The FERPO Hearing at the Bergen County Court in Hackensack, NJ Before a Superior Court Judge

The State’s witness, the alleged victim, testified as to their recollection of what happened, claiming that they were injured by our client and that they felt the behavior was ‘unpredictable’. On cross, the alleged victim admitted that they didn’t have any further contact with our client, did not feel fear of our client, and that our client didn’t use or even threaten to use a firearm to harm himself or others. The State’s second witness, the reporting officer, testified about what was reported to him from the alleged victim, stating that the decision to ask the court to subject our client to a TERPO was made based solely on the version of events of the alleged victim, without even hearing from our client’s side of the story. On cross examination, state’s witness testified that our client prior to the incident that led to them being subject to a TERPO never had a previous criminal history, never had any other TERPO’s issued, never had any Temporary Restraining Orders (TRO’s) issued alleging they engaged in domestic violence, never been diagnosed with a mental health condition, and it was never reported that he misused, mishandled, or caused any injury to themselves or others with a firearm.

When the client testified, they testified about their employment, education, living situation, and the absence of any aggravating factors (no other TERPO, no TRO, no mental health diagnosis, no substance abuse issues, etc…). As to the incident that led to the TERPO, our client testified that they acted in self-defense and that the alleged victim was the aggressor. After remaining steadfast on cross-examination, by being asked questions about the use of an object to allegedly inflict bodily injury, our client remained consistent in testifying that their actions they believed were done in self-defense as the alleged victim was the initial aggressor. Our client also testified about their change in circumstances from the time the TERPO was issued to the trial date (different living conditions, no initiating contact with alleged victim, learning and applying new skills to address issues that cause conflict or tension, etc…)

The Judge’s Ruling – TERPO Dismissed

At the end of the trial, Judge Doyle concluded that the Prosecutor’s office did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not) that our client would pose a significant risk of committing serious bodily harm to themselves or others by having access to firearms. The court found the alleged victim’s testimony lacking credibility and noted that no parties came forward to testify about any concerns over our client’s present condition as it related to whether they are a danger to commit bodily harm to themselves or others by having access to firearms. The court found that there were no factors that applied (past history of making threats to others, past history of harming self or others, no criminal history, no Domestic Violence history, no other TERPO’s, and no mental health issues), that the State was unable to prove that it was more likely than not that our client would pose a present significant risk to commit injury to themselves or others by having access to firearms.

Here is a review from our very satisfied client:

Shaquille – 5 stars

“Tormey law firm is A+ deliver as they promise Mr Jeff Skiendziul gave me his word build my confidence and didn’t break it all communication was great”

Our client went from facing felony charges and potentially losing their gun rights by being subject to a TERPO to having the criminal charges dismissed and the TERPO dismissed as well. If you or a loved one needs assistance with a TERPO in Bergen County, contact our offices now for immediate assistance and a free initial consultation at 201-614-2474.