Inasmuch as petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus asserts no issue which could not have been raised in his direct appeal, his application for a writ of error coram nobis or his three CPL 440.10 motions — indeed, he concedes each of his arguments has already been judicially reviewed — the writ was properly denied (see, People ex rel. Douglas v Vincent, 50 N.Y.2d 901, 903; People ex rel. Rosado v Miles, 138 A.D.2d 808).
Judgment affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P.J., Casey, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.