Opinion
Decided December 26, 1985
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, John S. Conable, J.
Edward L. Chassin and Norman P. Effman for appellant.
Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Robert Hermann and Leslie Neustadt of counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.
The procedures followed in the adjustment committee proceedings challenged by petitioner conformed with the regulations governing adjustment committees then in effect. The adjustment committee determinations resulted only in the inmate's confinement to "less amenable and more restrictive quarters" for the purpose of maintaining institutional order and safety rather than as punishment. Thus, compliance with the minimal due process requirements of Wolff v McDonnell ( 418 U.S. 539) was not mandated (Hewitt v Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 468; Matter of Amato v Ward, 41 N.Y.2d 469, 472-473).
Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges JASEN, MEYER, SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER and TITONE concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.4), order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.