Opinion
February 5, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court (Ingraham, J.).
Petitioner is currently serving a prison term of 2 1/3 to 7 years for a 1992 conviction of the crime of grand larceny in the third degree. While participating in a work release program in 1993, petitioner was indicted and convicted of tampering with physical evidence and petit larceny and sentenced to a prison term of 2 to 4 years which was to run consecutively to the undischarged portion of the prior sentence. After his sentence expiration date was recomputed (based upon the imposition of the new consecutive prison term), petitioner was given a parole eligibility date of January 8, 1996. Following his appearance before the Parole Board in November 1995, parole was denied. Petitioner did not appeal from the Board's decision, but made this application for a writ of habeas corpus. The writ was denied by Supreme Court, prompting this appeal. We affirm.
Initially, inasmuch as petitioner has not shown that he is entitled to immediate release from custody prior to the expiration of his prison sentence, habeas corpus relief is unavailable (see, People ex rel. Talley v. Executive Dept., N.Y. State Div. of Parole, 232 A.D.2d 798, 799). In any event, petitioner's application was properly denied inasmuch as petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies when he neglected to appeal the denial of parole. Habeas corpus relief is inappropriate where the claimed errors could have been addressed in an administrative appeal (see, People ex rel. Vazquez v. Travis, 236 A.D.2d 745; see also, 9 NYCRR 8006.3). Nevertheless, absent evidence that in denying parole the Parole Board failed to consider the relevant factors or adhere to the statutory requirements, we agree with Supreme Court that no basis exists to disturb its decision (see, People ex rel. McCormack v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 244 A.D.2d 673; see also, Executive Law § 259-i). Petitioner's remaining contentions have been examined and found to be without merit.
Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Spain, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.