Opinion
October 6, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.
Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Special Term properly dismissed the petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus because it failed to comply with the procedural requirements of CPLR 7002 (c) (see, People ex rel. Artese v New York State Bd. of Parole, 54 A.D.2d 1047; People ex rel. Kagan v La Vallee, 49 A.D.2d 986). In addition, habeas corpus is not an appropriate remedy. The contentions raised by petitioner could have been reviewed on his direct appeal or on a motion brought pursuant to CPL article 440 in the court of conviction (see, People ex rel. Goss v Smith, 69 N.Y.2d 727, affg 116 A.D.2d 968; People ex rel. Milwood v Kuhlmann, 136 A.D.2d 784; People ex rel. Nelson v Scully, 119 A.D.2d 709; People ex rel. Brady v Scully, 111 A.D.2d 419, lv denied 65 N.Y.2d 609; People ex rel. Myers v Dalsheim, 97 A.D.2d 447, lv denied 61 N.Y.2d 601). Although the record does not identify each of the issues that defendant raised on his direct appeal of the judgment of conviction, defendant had the opportunity to advance the present contentions at that time. Moreover, the facts of this case do not "indicate a violation of petitioner['s] fundamental constitutional rights such as to warrant a departure from the traditional orderly procedure" (People ex rel. Thomas v LeFevre, 102 A.D.2d 925; see also, People ex rel. Keitt v McMann, 18 N.Y.2d 257; cf., People ex rel. Culhane v Sullivan, 139 A.D.2d 315, 317-318).