Initially, we note that an order fixing bail is nonappealable, and, thus, not reviewable by this court on a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction ( see, People ex rel. Rosenthal v Wolfson, 48 N.Y.2d 230, 232; People ex rel. Klein v. Krueger, 25 N.Y.2d 497, 499). Such an order may properly be reviewed in a habeas corpus proceeding where it appears that either constitutional or statutory standards proscribing excessive bail have been violated (CPLR 7010 [b]; People ex rel. Ryan v Infante, 108 A.D.2d 987; People ex rel. Cooke v. McNulty, 48 A.D.2d 586, 587). Defendant, however, failed to pursue this remedy and may not now be heard to complain.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered October 22, 1980 in Albany County, which dismissed a writ of habeas corpus after a hearing. Judgment affirmed, without costs (see People ex rel. Parone v Phimister, 29 N.Y.2d 580, 581; People ex rel. Klein v Krueger, 25 N.Y.2d 497; People ex rel. Cooke v McNulty, 48 A.D.2d 586). Mahoney, P.J., Sweeney, Kane, Yesawich, Jr., and Weiss, JJ., concur.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered June 4, 1976 in Albany County, which sustained a writ of habeas corpus and reduced the amount of petitioner's bail fixed by the County Court from $100,000 to $35,000. On the record of this case, habeas corpus relief was appropriate (People ex rel. Klein v Krueger, 25 N.Y.2d 497; People ex rel. Lobell v McDonnell, 296 N.Y. 109; People ex rel. Zinzow v Harkness, 48 A.D.2d 746). The judgment of Special Term must be affirmed, as there is a constitutionally rational basis for its determination (People ex rel. Cooke v McNulty, 48 A.D.2d 586; People ex rel. Goines v Howard, 41 A.D.2d 683). Judgment affirmed, without costs.
The scope of review upon a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking review of a denial of bail is limited to whether constitutional or statutory standards were violated (People ex rel. Klein v Krueger, 25 N.Y.2d 497). The test which this court must apply is to determine if there is a constitutionally rational basis for County Court's determination (People ex rel. Cooke v McNulty, 48 A.D.2d 586). The only matter of legitimate concern in determining a bail application is whether any bail or the amount fixed is necessary to insure a defendant's future court appearances (CPL 510.30 [a]; Matter of Sardino v State Commn. on Judicial Conduct, 58 N.Y.2d 286, 289). "There must be a sufficient showing on the record to support the decision and the exercise of discretion must be upon a rational basis delineated by the criteria listed under CPL 510.30" (People ex rel. Ryan v Infante, 108 A.D.2d 987, 988).