Calendar Date: May 4, 2018Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch, Mulvey and Rumsey, JJ.__________Cerious-Delmarr McCray, Wallkill, appellant pro se.__________Lynch, J.Appeals (1) from a judgment of the Supreme Court(Feldstein, J.), entered September 22, 2015 in Franklin County,which denied petitioner’s application for a writ of habeascorpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without ahearing, and (2) from two orders of said court, entered October4, 2016 and May 1, 2017 in Franklin County, which deniedpetitioner’s motions for reconsideration and/or renewal.Petitioner is currently serving a prison term of 10 yearsfollowing his 2011 conviction of two counts of criminal sale of acontrolled substance in the third degree and two counts ofcriminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree(People v McCray, 106 AD3d 1110, 1111-1112 [2013], lv denied 21NY3d 1044 [2013]). In 2015, petitioner commenced this CPLRarticle 70 proceeding seeking a writ of habeas corpus asserting,among other things, a litany of investigative, prosecutorial,defense counsel and judicial misconduct claims and that he wasthe subject of an overarching conspiracy to deprive him of hisconstitutional rights. Supreme Court denied petitioner’sapplication without a hearing and subsequently denied two motionsfor reconsideration and/or renewal. Petitioner now appeals fromthe judgment and orders.With respect to petitioner’s initial application, “[h]abeascorpus is not the appropriate remedy for raising claims thatcould have been raised on direct appeal or in the context of aCPL article 440 motion” (People ex rel. Nailor v Kirkpatrick, 156AD3d 1100, 1100 [2017] [internal quotation marks and citationomitted]; see People ex rel. Latta v Martuscello, 140 AD3d 1421,1421 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 904 [2016]). We agree withSupreme Court that petitioner’s contentions could have beenraised on his direct appeal and, to the extent that such mattersinvolve facts outside of the record, petitioner acknowledges thathe has not moved for any relief pursuant to CPL article 440 (seePeople ex rel. Brown v People, 295 AD2d 834, 835 [2002], lvdenied 98 NY2d 613 [2002], cert denied 537 US 1175 [2003]; seealso People ex rel. Landy v Rock, 61 AD3d 1198, 1198 [2009], lvdenied 13 NY3d 702 [2009]; People ex rel. Washington v Walsh, 43AD3d 1217, 1217 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 816 [2007]). As weperceive no basis to depart from traditional orderly procedure(see People ex rel. Brown v People, 295 AD2d at 835), we concludethat Supreme Court properly denied petitioner’s application.As to petitioner’s appeals from Supreme Court’s ordersdenying reconsideration and/or renewal, both motions must beconsidered ones to reargue inasmuch as they were not based uponnewly discovered evidence (see People ex rel. Kearney v Bartlett,131 AD3d 1313, 1314 [2015]; Matter of Syblis v New York State Bd.of Parole, 240 AD2d 821, 821 [1997]). Specifically with regardto the second motion, defendant failed to point to any new factsor change in the law that would require a differentdetermination; rather, he requested once again that Supreme Courtrevisit his initial arguments (see CPLR 2221 [e]; People ex rel.Adams v Cunningham, 134 AD3d 1258, 1259 [2015]; Matter of Jones vHickey, 126 AD3d 1247, 1248 [2015], lv dismissed 26 NY3d 950[2015]). As no appeal lies from an order denying reargument,these appeals must be dismissed (see People ex rel. Kearney vBartlett, 131 AD3d at 1314; Matter of Hill v Goord, 275 AD2d 492,493 [2000]).Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Mulvey and Rumsey, JJ., concur.ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.ORDERED that the appeals from the orders entered October 4,2016 and May 1, 2017 are dismissed, without costs.ENTER:Robert D. MaybergerClerk of the Court
