Opinion
October 30, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Stolarik, J.).
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
It is well established that a writ of habeas corpus is not the correct vehicle for reviewing the legality of a prisoner's confinement following a Superintendent's disciplinary proceeding (see, People ex rel. Dawson v Smith, 69 N.Y.2d 689). Accordingly, while we ordinarily would convert this proceeding to one brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (see, CPLR 103 [c]; People ex rel. Brown v New York State Div. of Parole, 70 N.Y.2d 391; People ex rel. Dawson v Smith, supra), since the application was made some six months after the disciplinary determination, it is time barred by the four-month Statute of Limitations under CPLR 217 (see, People ex rel. Dawson v Smith, supra; see also, Gertler v Goodgold, 107 A.D.2d 481, 487, affd 66 N.Y.2d 946; Matter of Watson v LeFevre, 108 A.D.2d 1067) and such a conversion would be meaningless. In any event, the record supports the conclusion that the petitioner was disciplined under the duly filed applicable State-wide rules then in effect (see, Matter of Walker v Coughlin, 141 A.D.2d 734). Spatt, J.P., Sullivan, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.