PEOPLE ANGELL EL v. SCORALICK (1999)

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the petitioner appeals from an order of the County Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.), dated May 4, 1999, which dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

 Pursuant to the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, codified in New York in CPL article 570, the petitioner has the right to challenge extradition to another state in a habeas corpus proceeding (see, CPL 570.24).   However, judicial review is limited to four inquiries:  (1) whether the extradition documents on their face are in order;  (2) whether the petitioner has been charged with a crime in the demanding State;  (3) whether the petitioner is the person named in the request for extradition;  and (4) whether the petitioner is a fugitive (see, Michigan v. Doran, 439 U.S. 282, 289, 99 S.Ct. 530, 58 L.Ed.2d 521;  People ex rel. Strachan v. Colon, 77 N.Y.2d 499, 502, 568 N.Y.S.2d 895, 571 N.E.2d 65;  People ex rel. Quarterman v. Commissioner of the N.Y. City Dept. of Correction, 183 A.D.2d 736, 583 N.Y.S.2d 297).   Here, the extradition documents are facially sufficient and meet all of the requirements of a proper demand for extradition (see, CPL 570.08;  People ex rel. Kotch [Russo] v. District Attorney of Kings County, 170 A.D.2d 632, 566 N.Y.S.2d 404).

The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.