SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5064-16T1

BRIAN PALADINO, 

Appellant,

v. 

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS, 

Respondent. 

__________________________ 

Submitted February 27, 2019 – Decided April 17, 2019

Before Judges Koblitz and Currier. 

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of 

Corrections. 

Brian Paladino, appellant pro se. 

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (Melissa Dutton Schaffer, Assistant 

Attorney General, of counsel; Kevin J. Dronson, 

Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). 

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-5064-16T1

Appellant Brian Paladino, a State inmate, appeals from the sanction 

imposed by the Department of Corrections (DOC) after a finding of guilt of

committing a prohibited act. Appellant contends the sanction of thirty days loss 

of recreational privileges is not permissible under N.J.A.C. 10A:4-5. We affirm.

Appellant was charged with several prohibited acts after striking his 

cellmate with a cane. Following a disciplinary hearing, appellant was found 

guilty of *.306, "conduct which disrupts or interferes with the security or orderly 

running of the correctional facility"; and *.014, "unauthorized physical contact 

with any person with an article, item or material, such as anything readily 

capable of inflicting bodily injury." The hearing officer noted appellant's 

written statement in which he admitted striking his cellmate with a cane, and 

video surveillance footage depicting the act.

The hearing officer imposed sanctions of thirty days loss of recreational 

privileges, 180 days of administrative segregation, and 120 days loss of 

commutation time. The officer advised the sanctions were imposed to "maintain 

the orderly running of the institution" and the situation could have been much 

worse if officers were not already on the floor responding to issues with 

appellant. 
3

A-5064-16T1

Appellant appealed the decision, arguing the proper infraction was *.0141

and the hearing was untimely. The DOC reviewed and affirmed the findings 

and sanctions.

2

On appeal, appellant raises a new argument, contending the imposed 

sanction of loss of recreational privileges is impermissible. We disagree.

Our role in reviewing a prison disciplinary decision is limited. Figueroa 

v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186, 190 (App. Div. 2010). Generally,

the decision must not be disturbed on appeal unless it was arbitrary, capricious, 

or unreasonable, or lacked the support of "substantial credible evidence in the 

record as a whole." Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980). 

A conviction under prohibited act *.014 results in a sanction of no less 

than ninety-one days of administrative segregation, as well as one or more of 

the additional sanctions required under N.J.A.C. 10A:4-5.1(g). Thirty days loss 

of recreational privileges is one of the additional sanctions listed. N.J.A.C.

10A:4-5.1(g)(1) ("Loss of one or more correctional facility privileges up to 

[thirty] calendar days.").

 

1 Appellant was originally charged with *.003, "assaulting any person with a 

weapon." However, the charge was modified to a *.014 infraction by the hearing 

officer.

2 Appellant does not reassert these contentions in this appeal.
4

A-5064-16T1

The decision of the hearing officer was based on sufficient credible 

evidence, and the decision of the DOC was not arbitrary, capricious, or 

unreasonable.

Affirmed.