Opinion
April 2, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Chemung County (Swartwood, J.).
Petitioner commenced this habeas corpus proceeding arguing that his confession should have been suppressed as the product of a warrantless arrest. Because a writ of habeas corpus is not generally available to raise issues which were or could have been raised on direct appeal or by way of a CPL article 440 motion (see, People ex rel. Woodard v Berry, 143 A.D.2d 457, 458, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 705; People ex rel. Rosado v Miles, 138 A.D.2d 808), Supreme Court properly denied petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus. In addition, we see no reason to depart from traditional orderly procedure (see, People ex rel. Grady v LeFevre, 152 A.D.2d 850, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 702; People ex rel. Avery v LeFevre, 105 A.D.2d 1015). In any event, even if petitioner's claim was meritorious, he is not entitled to immediate release; therefore, habeas corpus is not an appropriate remedy (see, People ex rel. Richards v Reid, 117 A.D.2d 695; People ex rel. Williams v Scully, 107 A.D.2d 729, 730).
Weiss, P.J., Crew III, Mahoney, Casey and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.