Insofar as petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus failed to indicate his previous applications for such relief, the application was insufficient on its face and fatally defective (see, CPLR 7002 [c] [5], [6]; People ex rel. Christianson v Berry, 165 A.D.2d 961; People ex rel. Kagan v La Vallee, 49 A.D.2d 986). In any event, the record fails to support his claim that the determination to revoke his parole was based on perjured testimony. Furthermore, because he engaged in disruptive behavior which warranted his removal from the hearing, he could not challenge the validity of that proceeding from the point after he was removed (see, Matter of Al Jihad v Mann, 159 A.D.2d 914, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 706; Matter of Payne v Smith, 97 A.D.2d 960). Petitioner's remaining contentions have been considered and found to be lacking in merit.
Judgment affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P.J., Casey, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.