Opinion
November 2, 2000.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Relihan Jr., J.), entered January 13, 2000 in Tioga County, which denied petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.
Timothy C. Webster, Attica, appellant in person.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), Albany, for respondent.
Before: Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Following his release on parole, petitioner was charged with violating certain conditions of his parole. After waiving a preliminary revocation hearing, a final revocation hearing was commenced at which petitioner waived any notice or timeliness issues. Based upon the hearing testimony and documentation presented, petitioner's parole was revoked with a recommendation that he be held for 18 months. Prior to perfecting his administrative appeal, petitioner filed an application for habeas corpus relief challenging the determination to revoke his parole. Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding on the ground that petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Petitioner appeals and we affirm.
It is well settled that administrative remedies must be exhausted prior to judicial review of any alleged error in the parole revocation process (see, People ex rel. Gaito v. Couture, 268 A.D.2d 914, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 765; People ex rel. Davis v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 263 A.D.2d 706, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 819). Here, habeas corpus relief is unavailable to petitioner inasmuch as he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies prior to commencing this proceeding (see, id.). Moreover, the issues raised by petitioner are unpreserved for our review given petitioner's waiver at the final revocation hearing regarding any notice or timeliness issues and his failure to object to those issues which he now attempts to raise before this Court (see generally, Matter of Montanez v. New York State Div. of Parole, 227 A.D.2d 753, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 814). Accordingly, the petition was properly dismissed.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.