People ex rel. Hardy v. Kuhlmann

— Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Torraca, J.), entered June 5, 1991 in Sullivan County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, after a hearing.

We reject petitioner’s contention that Supreme Court erred in dismissing his application for a writ of habeas corpus. In doing so, we initially note that habeas corpus is not a proper procedure to raise issues which were or could have been raised on direct appeal or pursuant to CPL article 440 (see, People ex rel. Woodard v Berry, 143 AD2d 457 , lv denied 73 NY2d 705 ). Petitioner’s conviction has already been appealed and affirmed (see, People v Hardy, 146 AD2d 800 , lv denied 73 NY2d 1015 ), and the allegations in this proceeding concerning the failure to inform him of the existence of a jury note were raised and rejected in at least one of his postverdict CPL article 440 motions (see, e.g., Matter of Williams v Henderson, 124 AD2d 994 , lv denied 69 NY2d 605 ). We see no reason to depart from traditional orderly procedure (see, People ex rel. Grady v LeFevre, 152 AD2d 850 , lv denied 75 NY2d 702 ) and in any event, based on the record before us, petitioner’s arguments are, as Supreme Court found, without merit (see, People ex rel. Rosado v Miles, 138 AD2d 808 ). Finally, petitioner’s procedural arguments concerning Supreme Court’s decision have been reviewed and rejected as being without merit.