Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Following their arraignment for shoplifting, the petitioners were continued on a modest police bail provided that they attended a one-day remediation and education program, for which they were charged an $85 fee. The petitioners paid the fee and completed the course. Subsequently they commenced a proceeding to prohibit further criminal prosecution for petit larceny on the ground, inter alia, that their participation in the program constituted punishment, and that any further prosecution would subject them to the risk of multiple punishments for the same conduct in violation of constitutional protections against double jeopardy. The court dismissed the proceeding, and we now affirm.
The program was not a punishment, as the course did not serve the goal of either retribution or deterrence. Rather, the class was, by its terms, purely remedial in nature, with the result that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment was not triggered ( see, e.g., United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267; Matter of Cordero v. Lalor, 89 N.Y.2d 521, cert denied ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 131; People v. Haishun, 238 A.D.2d 521; People v. Roach, 226 A.D.2d 55; see also, United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435; Matter of Smith v. County Ct., 224 A.D.2d 89; City of New York v. Wright, 222 A.D.2d 374, 375; Matter of Constantine v. One 1980 Datsun, 163 A.D.2d 866).
The petitioners' remaining contentions are without merit.
Sullivan, J.P., Friedmann, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.