MICHAEL M. MOHUN, J.
Upon reading and filing the above-named relator's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, verified December 21, 2015, and it appearing that this matter is inappropriate for habeas corpus relief because the relator seeks to challenge a judgment of conviction and sentence rendered in another court based upon grounds which either have been, or which could be, raised and decided by direct appeal or through a proceeding brought for relief pursuant to CPL Article 440 (see People ex rel Knox v. Smith, 60 A.D.2d 789 [4th Dept., 1977], leave to appeal denied by 43 N.Y.2d 647 [1978] ; People ex rel Abdullah v. Walker, 199 A.D.2d 1074 [4th Dept., 1993], leave to appeal denied by 83 N.Y.2d 752 [1994] ; People ex rel. Spencer v. Burge, 307 A.D.2d 772 [4th Dept., 2003] ; People ex rel. Reed v. Travis, 12 AD3d 1102 [4th Dept., 2005], leave to appeal denied by 4 NY3d 704 [2004] ; People ex rel. Gloss v. Murray, 35 AD3d 1186 [4th Dept., 2006], leave to appeal denied by 8 NY3d 807 [2007] ), and there being no basis shown for a departure from "traditional orderly procedure" in this case (People ex rel. Tuszynski v. Stallone, 117 AD3d 1472 [4th Dept., 2014] ; People ex rel. Keitt v. McMann, 18 N.Y.2d 257 [1966] ),
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby
ORDERED that the petition is denied in all respects without a hearing.