ROSELLE PARK — When Lorraine Selecky received the ticket in the mail in 2009, charging her with illegally parking in a space reserved for the handicapped, she knew it was wrong.

When a municipal court accepted the testimony of a borough police officer and ruled against Selecky, fining her $250 plus court costs after a hearing in which she represented herself and cross-examined the officer, she knew that decision was wrong.

Selecky hired a lawyer, appealed the case in state Superior Court and lost again. But she wasn't done. She had the attorney take the case to the state Appellate Court, which ruled in her favor and ordered a new trial in a different municipal court, where she was acquitted.

Selecky then sued the borough to recoup legal expenses and last month received a $15,000 settlement, according to papers outlining the agreement.

"She was determined. She was going to do whatever it took," said Joel Rachmiel, the Springfield lawyer Selecky hired to appeal the municipal court case.

"I knew I was right, and innocent," said Selecky, 52, of Elizabeth. She said she continued to fight, despite friends and co-workers telling her to drop her battle.

"People that I work with, they all said I was crazy," Selecky recalled.

When asked about the settlement, Roselle Park borough attorney Richard Huxford said, "The borough is happy the matter has been resolved without any finding of any improper behavior by any police officer."

Selecky's legal journey began nearly five years ago, on Sept. 19, 2009, at a Redbox video rental machine outside a 7-Eleven store on Locust Street. Selecky parked in the store's lot and she and her then-13-year-old daughter walked to the box. Off-duty borough Police Officer James Cantrell was ahead of her with his children, according to Selecky's lawsuit against the borough.

A heated exchange occurred, over either a comment Selecky made about Cantrell's children taking too long at the machine, or Cantrell saying something about an argument between Selecky and her daughter, court papers state.

At one point Selecky threatened to call police, though she never did, and Cantrell, still a member of the Roselle Park Police Department, never mentioned he was an officer.

Both of them eventually left the lot, but two days later, Selecky received a ticket in the mail for parking illegally in a space reserved for the disabled.

"It was really suspect when he (the officer) sent the ticket in the mail," Rachmiel said.

Knowing she had parked legally in the 7-Eleven lot, Selecky decided to fight the ticket. She went to the store for security camera video, only to find the store had no video of the parking spaces.

She tried to introduce her daughter's hearsay evidence in municipal court, but the judge refused to consider it, according to the appeals court decision.

Selecky cross-examined Cantrell in an exchange that the judge later held against her.

Selecky asked the officer why he didn't he tell her to move her car when he first saw her park in the handicapped space. Cantrell responded that Selecky appeared to know the law and there was no need to inform her of the violation. He said he chose to send the ticket instead, according to court papers.

The municipal judge, in his decision, said Selecky's question to the officer made his suspicious.

"I made me think a bit (of) what would trigger that question, and it made me think possibly, possibly, that you were in that spot and that you were hurt or offended by the fact that a simple courtesy would have been to say, ‘Hey, why don't you back out of that handicapped spot,' " the judge reportedly said.

The judge was later criticized when state appeals court judges said it was wrong to consider a defendant's question as evidence.

"We know of no precedent that would permit a hypothetical question posed by a pro se party during cross-examination of a witness at trial to be considered as substantive evidence in a proceeding," the appeals court judges wrote in their decision.

"Rather, (the question) constituted an entirely logical inquiry designed to test the officer's credibility," the ruling states.

The appeals court judges sent the case back for a new trial before a different judge. The case was transferred to Kenilworth municipal court, where Selecky was found not guilty, and the fine she originally paid was refunded.

Selecky sued the borough in April 2013, on grounds of false and malicious prosecution, according to court documents. Just last month, a confidential settlement was reached in which she was paid $15,000, according to a copy of the settlement that was signed by a lawyer for the borough's insurance carrier, New Jersey Intergovernmental Insurance.

Although Selecky willingly talked about her intent to fight the ticket, the settlement agreement includes a clause prohibiting her from speaking about the case or how much she received.

"When you know you’re right, you have to fight," she said last week, then added, "I'm happy this long journey has come to an end."

MORE UNION COUNTY NEWS

FOLLOW THE STAR-LEDGER: TWITTER • FACEBOOK • GOOGLE+