We reject petitioner's contention that because the disciplinary proceedings were commenced more than seven days after his restrictive confinement, the time limitations of 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 (a) were violated. The record shows that the extensions were timely requested and granted (see, 7 NYCRR 251-5.1 [a]; Matter of Agosto v. Coughlin, 153 A.D.2d 1008). The adjournments, which occurred in order to locate the witnesses requested by petitioner and to await the videotape of the prison disturbance at issue, were authorized pursuant to the provisions of the regulation (see, Matter of McCoy v. Leonardo, 175 A.D.2d 358). Petitioner's remaining contentions have been reviewed and we agree with Supreme Court that they should be rejected as being without merit or unpreserved for review.
Mikoll, J.P., Yesawich Jr., Mercure, Crew III and Mahoney, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.