SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1614-18T3

ZION'ELIYAH YAH'TORAH,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

Submitted May 12, 2020 – Decided May 26, 2020

Before Judges Accurso and Rose.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of 

Corrections.

Zion'Eliyah Yah'Torah, appellant pro se.

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (Jane C. Schuster, Assistant Attorney 

General, of counsel; Kimberly G. Williams, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1614-18T3

Zion'Eliyah Yah'Torah, an inmate at New Jersey State Prison (NJSP), 

appeals a final agency decision of the New Jersey Department of Corrections, 

refusing to afford him daily outdoor recreation.

On appeal, Yah'Torah raises the following points for our consideration: 

POINT 1

THE NEW JERSEY STATE PRISON IS IN 

VIOLATION OF [N.J.A.C.] 10A:17-8.6(d) DUE TO 

ITS DENIAL OF ALLOWING PRISONERS ONE 

HOUR OF YARD A DAY. 

POINT 2

NEW JERSEY STATE PRISON[']S DEN[I]AL OF 

DAILY RECREATION FOR [SIC] IS ARBITRARY 

[AND] CAPRICIOUS ACTION. 

(Not Raised Below)

In his reply brief, Yah'Torah contends:

A. THE DEPARTMENT'S FINAL DECISION IS 

NOT BASED ON SUBSTANTIAL, CREDIBLE 

EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD AND SHOULD BE 

REVERSED.

B. THE DEPARTMENT'S DECISION HAS 

VIOLATED APPELLANT YAH[']TORAH'S RIGHTS 

AS EXPRESSED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE 

CODE; THEREFORE, THE FINAL ADJUDICATION 

SHOULD BE VACATED AND REMANDED.
3

A-1614-18T3

We have thoroughly reviewed the record in light of these contentions, and 

conclude they lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. 

R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We add the following brief remarks. 

Our scope of review of an agency decision is limited. In re Stallworth, 

208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011); Figueroa v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186, 

190 (App. Div. 2010). Reviewing courts presume the validity of the 

"administrative agency's exercise of its statutorily delegated responsibilities." 

Lavezzi v. State, 219 N.J. 163, 171 (2014). "We defer to an agency decision 

and do not reverse unless it is arbitrary, capricious[,] or unreasonable or not 

supported by substantial credible evidence in the record." Jenkins v. N.J. Dep't 

of Corr., 412 N.J. Super. 243, 259 (App. Div. 2010). "'Substantial evidence' 

means 'such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support 

a conclusion.'" Figueroa, 414 N.J. Super. at 192 (quoting In re Pub. Serv. Elec. 

& Gas Co., 35 N.J. 358, 376 (1961)). 

"A reviewing court 'may not substitute its own judgment for the agency's, 

even though the court might have reached a different result.'" Stallworth, 208 

N.J. at 194 (quoting In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474, 483 (2007)). "This is particularly 

true when the issue under review is directed to the agency's special 'expertise 

and superior knowledge of a particular field.'" Id. at 195 (quoting In re 
4

A-1614-18T3

Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 28 (2007)). But, an agency's "interpretation of the law 

and the legal consequences that flow from established facts are not entitled to 

any special deference." Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 

140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995). 

Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:17-8.6(d): "Inmates shall be given the 

opportunity to participate in a minimum of one hour of active recreation per 

day." And, under N.J.A.C. 10A:17-8.3:

(a) Each correctional facility may provide the 

following for the assemblage or recreational activities 

of general population inmates: 

1. An auditorium, large area and/or gymnasium 

that may include a stage, a screen upon which films may 

be projected and other multipurpose equipment; and 

2. An outdoor recreational area of sufficient size 

to accommodate athletic activities.

In its final decision,1the Department informed Yah'Torah that his matter 

had "been adequately responded to by custody staff." That prior response was 

an explanation from "Major Sears" that N.J.A.C. 10A:17.8.6(d) does not specify 

yard time, "just recreation and only if physical facilities permit, which here at 

NJSP they do not." 

 

1

 On November 19, 2018, the Department issued its final decision to Yah'Torah 

via its computer-based grievance system. 
5

A-1614-18T3

Because Yah'Torah claimed he only was denied daily "yard" time, we 

conclude the Department's final agency decision is not arbitrary, and is 

supported by credible evidence in the record. Jenkins, 412 N.J. Super. at 259. 

To the extent Yah'Torah claims in his reply brief that his argument was not 

limited to yard time and implies the Department failed to afford him any active 

recreational time, we decline to consider those claims. See L.J. Zucca, Inc. v. 

Allen Bros. Wholesale Distribs. Inc., 434 N.J. Super. 60, 87 (App. Div. 2014)

("An appellant may not raise new contentions for the first time in a reply brief."). 

Affirmed.