DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
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 petitioner's conviction" (People ex rel. Pearson v. Garvin, 211 A.D.2d 690, 691; see People ex rel. Benbow v. Scully, 189 A.D.2d 844, 845). "Since the petitioner * * * presents no fundamental constitutional or statutory claim that was not already reviewed on direct appeal or on his CPL 440.10 motion and would warrant departure from traditional, orderly process" (People ex rel. Pearson v. Garvin, supra at 691; cf. People ex rel. Keitt v. McMann, 18 N.Y.2d 257, 262), the Supreme Court properly determined that the petitioner's application is procedurally barred.
FLORIO, J.P., CRANE, COZIER, and RIVERA, JJ., concur.