The petition challenged the prosecutor's waiver of an opening statement in petitioner's nonjury trial and the constitutionality of CPL 320.20 (3) (a) insofar as that statute permits such a waiver. These challenges had been made on the direct appeal from petitioner's conviction, and were considered and rejected by this court (People v Jones, 74 A.D.2d 613, lv denied 49 N.Y.2d 894, 1004, cert denied 447 U.S. 927; see, People v Rivara, 33 A.D.2d 567). Since habeas corpus does not lie to permit review of claimed errors already considered on direct appeal, the petition was properly denied (e.g., People ex rel. Williams v Scully, 107 A.D.2d 729; People ex rel. Small v Scully, 92 A.D.2d 943, lv denied 59 N.Y.2d 605). Moreover, habeas corpus is inappropriate in this case since, even if meritorious, petitioner's claims would at best result in a new trial, not release from custody (e.g., People ex rel. Kaplan v Commissioner of Correction of City of N Y, 93 A.D.2d 768, affd 60 N.Y.2d 648; People ex rel. Douglas v Vincent, 50 N.Y.2d 901). We have examined petitioner's remaining argument and find it to be without merit.