Jermosen v. Smith

489 N.E.2d 1293, 66 N.Y.2d 1024, 499 N.Y.S.2d 391, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 18365
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedDecember 26, 1985
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 489 N.E.2d 1293 (Jermosen v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jermosen v. Smith, 489 N.E.2d 1293, 66 N.Y.2d 1024, 499 N.Y.S.2d 391, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 18365 (N.Y. 1985).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

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 [1026]*1026adjustment 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 US 539) was not mandated (Hewitt v Helms, 459 US 460, 468; Matter of Amato v Ward, 41 NY2d 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 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Gittens v. State
132 Misc. 2d 399 (New York State Court of Claims, 1986)
Lopez v. Kramer
118 A.D.2d 572 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
489 N.E.2d 1293, 66 N.Y.2d 1024, 499 N.Y.S.2d 391, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 18365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jermosen-v-smith-ny-1985.