Opinion
No. 2021-08265 Ind. No. 2907/08
02-13-2025
The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Elie Granger, appellant.
Elie Granger, Attica, NY, appellant pro se. Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and Christopher Blira-Koessler of counsel), for respondent.
Elie Granger, Attica, NY, appellant pro se.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and Christopher Blira-Koessler of counsel), for respondent.
ROBERT J. MILLER, J.P. LINDA CHRISTOPHER HELEN VOUTSINAS LOURDES M. VENTURA, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Michelle A. Johnson, J.), dated October 18, 2021. The order and judgment, insofar as appealed from, denied the defendant's application for a writ of habeas corpus.
ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
In 2011, the defendant was convicted of assault in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child. On his direct appeal, this Court affirmed the judgment of conviction (see People v Granger, 122 A.D.3d 940). This Court subsequently denied the defendant's application for a writ of error coram nobis (see People v Granger, 147 A.D.3d 871). The defendant also moved pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment of conviction. The Supreme Court denied his motion, and a Justice of this Court denied his application for leave to appeal from the order denying his motion. The defendant thereafter applied for a writ of habeas corpus. In an order and judgment dated October 18, 2021, the Supreme Court, inter alia, denied his application. The defendant appeals.
"A writ of habeas corpus may not be used to review questions already decided or, absent reasons of practicality and necessity, questions that could have been raised by direct appeal or by a collateral attack in the court of the [defendant's] conviction" (People ex rel. Skinner v Connolly, 105 A.D.3d 877, 877 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People ex rel. Keitt v McMann, 18 N.Y.2d 257, 262-263; People ex rel. Lifrieri v Lee, 116 A.D.3d 720, 720). Since the defendant's contentions in support of his application for habeas corpus relief either were or could have been raised on his direct appeal or in his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10, and since he failed to establish any basis to warrant a departure from traditional process, the Supreme Court properly denied his application (see CPLR 7003[a]; People ex rel. Adamson v Griffin, 178 A.D.3d 715, 715; People ex rel. Gladden v Griffin, 149 A.D.3d 859, 860; People ex rel. Lifrieri v Lee, 116 A.D.3d at 720).
MILLER, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, VOUTSINAS and VENTURA, JJ., concur.