Opinion
November 25, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The arguments made by the appellant in support of his application for a writ of habeas corpus were, or could have been, advanced either on his direct appeal from the underlying judgment of conviction, or in a prior habeas corpus proceeding. The Supreme Court was, therefore, correct in denying the application on those grounds (see, CPLR 7003 [b]; People ex rel. Goss v Smith, 69 N.Y.2d 727, 729, affg 116 A.D.2d 968; People ex rel. Patterson v. Senkowski, 175 A.D.2d 957; People ex rel. Bresette v. Superintendent, 175 A.D.2d 961; People ex rel. Douglas v. Vincent, 67 A.D.2d 587, affd 50 N.Y.2d 901; cf., People ex rel. Keitt v. McMann, 18 N.Y.2d 257, 262). Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Kunzeman and Miller, JJ., concur.