Preview:

a2868-05.opn.html

Original Wordprocessor Version
(NOTE: The status of this decision is Unpublished.) Original Wordprocessor Version

This case can also be found at *CITE_PENDING*. (NOTE: The status of this decision is unpublished.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-2868-05T52868-05T5 GREGORY HARRINGTON, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. ______________________________________________________________

Submitted January 9, 2007 - Decided January 26, 2007 Before Judges Coburn and R.B. Coleman. On appeal from a Final Determination of the New Jersey Department of Corrections. Gregory Harrington, appellant pro se. Stuart Rabner, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Christopher C. Josephson, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). PER CURIAM Gregory Harrington appeals from a final decision of the Department of Corrections, adjudicating him guilty of Prohibited Act *.306, conduct that disrupts or interferes with the security of or orderly running of a correctional facility, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a2868-05.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:38:25 PM]

a2868-05.opn.html

After carefully considering the record and briefs, we are satisfied that Harrington's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). Nonetheless we add the following comments. The hearing officer found that a guard saw Harrington throw a punch while in a cage with a number of other inmates. Because of the number of inmates in the cage, the guard activated the riot bell. Although later investigation showed that no one was struck by the punch, the hearing officer concluded that the event had the capacity to create disruption.

Harrington argues that the conclusion was not supported by sufficient evidence. We disagree. His conduct, which he denied, but which the hearing officer had the right to find had occurred, reasonably required the guard to give the alarm, which in turn caused almost an hour's delay before there could be a return to normal activity. Our scope of review is quite narrow in such administrative matters, and when, as here, there is substantial evidence in the record supporting the administrative conclusion, we are obliged to affirm. Affirmed. (continued) (continued) 2 A-2868-05T5 January 26, 2007 0x01 graphic

This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden. This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a2868-05.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:38:25 PM]



Download a2868-05.opn.pdf

New Jersey Law