The arguments advanced by petitioner in support of his application for a writ of habeas corpus could have been, but were not, raised on direct appeal from the underlying criminal conviction. Thus, habeas corpus is not appropriate (see, e.g., People ex rel. Thomas v LeFevre, 102 A.D.2d 925; People ex rel. Davis v Coombe, 97 A.D.2d 667). Indeed, petitioner seems to recognize that the issues now raised could have been advanced on appeal and offers no acceptable reasons to depart from traditional, orderly procedure (see People ex rel. Keitt v McMann, 18 N.Y.2d 257). Accordingly, Special Term correctly denied petitioner's application.
Judgment affirmed, without costs. Kane, J.P., Main, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.