NJ - Officer Charles Bernoskie, 41, fatally shot, Rahway, 28 Nov 1958

Discussion in 'Recently Sentenced and Beyond' started by Kymistry35, Jul 12, 2007.

  1. Kymistry35

    Kymistry35 It's never to late to be who you could have been

    Messages:
    3,640
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  2. Loading...


  3. Alice253

    Alice253 Live Every Moment

    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    38
    From the above link:

    Elizabeth Bernoskie sued Zarinsky for wrongful death and was awarded $9.5 million in 2003. Zarinsky posted his $150,000 mutual fund as a down payment.

    On Tuesday, a state appeals court panel ruled that Bernoskie's lawsuit should not have been allowed since Zarinsky had already been acquitted. The $150,000 must be returned, it said.


    So what's the difference in this lady suing an acquitted man for wrongful death and the Goldman's suing OJ for the same thing? Just because he was acquitted, doesn't mean a wrongful death suit can't be filed. One is criminal, the other is civil.
     
  4. Paladin

    Paladin Former Member

    Messages:
    2,395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That sounds about right to me.
     
  5. Amraann

    Amraann Former Member

    Messages:
    9,705
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I was hoping to read that and find some mitigating issue but I saw none.

    I wonder if civil lawsuits could not be made back when the officer was killed?

    ALthough the article did not go into detail I wonder if that was the real issue?
     
  6. luthersmama

    luthersmama New Member

    Messages:
    2,878
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It wasn't because he was already acquitted. It was because 40 years had elapsed. Here is a snippet from the court's decision:



    "GRALL, J.A.D.
    This appeal is from a post-judgment order in a civil action denying defendant's motion for return of funds plaintiff collected on a judgment that was reversed on appeal because the trial court erred in concluding that the statute of limitations was equitably tolled. See Bernoskie v. Zarinsky, 383 N.J.Super. 127, 141, 890 A.2d 1013 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 186 N.J. 604, 897 A.2d 1059 (2006). We hold that defendant is entitled to restitution and remand for further proceedings.

    The facts pertinent to our decision are as follows. Forty years after the death of plaintiff Elizabeth Bernoskie's husband, a jury returned a verdict requiring defendant Robert Zarinsky to pay $2,500,000 on plaintiff's wrongful death claim and $7,000,000 on her survivorship claim. See id. at 134, 890 A.2d 1013. The judge awarded pre-judgment interest in the amount of $1,307,561.60.

    Subsequently, defendant moved for a stay of judgment pending appeal. The judge denied that motion. The denial was based on the judge's finding that defendant made “no proffer that ... a bond or cash deposit is or can be posted” and did not show good cause for relaxation of the obligation to secure the judgment. See R. 2:9-6. The order denying defendant's stay was entered on October 10, 2003.

    Plaintiff's attorney sought discovery and learned of an account in defendant's name with a balance of $154,033.58. The account was held by T. Rowe Price. On February 6, 2004, plaintiff obtained an order requiring T. Rowe Price to surrender the funds and all interest accrued to the date of surrender. On February 20, 2004, defendant moved before this court for a stay pending appeal. By letter dated February 27, 2004, T. Rowe Price complied with the order and sent plaintiff's attorney a check in the amount of $154,143.25. On March 11, 2004, plaintiff's attorney filed a response to defendant's motion for a stay with this court. On March 18, 2004, the motion panel denied defendant's application for a stay as moot.

    On February 10, 2006, this court issued its decision on the merits of defendant's appeal from the judgment. Bernoskie, supra, 383 N.J.Super. at 127, 890 A.2d 1013. Because the delay between plaintiff's husband's death and the trial impaired defendant's ability to present a defense, we reversed the judgment and dismissed the complaint. Id. at 135-47, 890 A.2d 1013.FN1 The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's petition for certification on April 13, 2006. 186 N.J . 604, 897 A.2d 1059."


    As is often the case, the reporter over-simplified the situation.
     
  7. Amraann

    Amraann Former Member

    Messages:
    9,705
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks Luthersmama:)

    I thought it had to be something like that.
     
  8. JerzWhim

    JerzWhim New Member

    Messages:
    104
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice