Opinion
January 14, 1999.
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Byrne, J.).
Even if the claims set forth in the instant petition possessed merit, which they do not ( see, Matter of Milburn v. New York State Div. of Parole, 173 A.D.2d 1016, 1017), petitioner would not be entitled to habeas corpus relief, i.e., immediate release from custody. The appropriate remedy for procedural errors such as those alleged in the petition entails no more than the direction of a new preliminary parole revocation hearing ( see, People ex rel. Taylor v. Richardson, 181 A.D.2d 1069, appeal dismissed 80 N.Y.2d 923; People ex rel. Jenkins v. Senkowski, 232 A.D.2d 774, 774-775). Accordingly, since the petition fails to state a claim for habeas corpus relief, we affirm its dismissal. We note that this is not a case in which it would be appropriate to convert the habeas proceeding into one brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 since there is as yet no final administrative determination to review ( compare, People ex rel. Maiello v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 101 A.D.2d 569, affd 65 N.Y.2d 145). Petitioner may raise claims respecting the conduct of the parole revocation proceedings at his yet to be held final revocation hearing and thereafter on administrative appeal. Only after completion of the administrative review process would article 78 review of resultant administrative determinations adverse to petitioner be appropriate.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.