PEOPLE EX REL ELMORE v. MCCARTHY (2026)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York EX REL. Treamon ELMORE, Appellant, v. Kevin MCCARTHY, as Superintendent of Elmira Correctional Facility, Respondent.

CV–25–1585

Decided: October 01, 2026

Before: Garry, P.J., Clark, Pritzker, Fisher and Mackey, JJ.

Treamon Elmore, Stormville, appellant pro se. Letitia James, Attorney General, Albany (Rachel Raimondi of counsel), for respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Richard Rich Jr., J.), entered July 22, 2025 in Chemung County, which dismissed petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70, without a hearing.

In 2020, petitioner was convicted following a jury trial of, among other crimes, two counts of murder in the first degree and was sentenced, as a second felony offender, to life in prison without parole. Petitioner's conviction was subsequently affirmed on appeal (see People v. Elmore, 211 AD3d 1536 [4th Dept 2022], lv denied 42 NY3d 938 [2024] ). Thereafter, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 70 proceeding seeking a writ of habeas corpus, asserting that his conviction is jurisdictionally defective. Supreme Court dismissed the application, and this appeal ensued.

We affirm. “Habeas corpus relief is not an appropriate remedy for asserting claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal or in a CPL article 440 motion, even if they are jurisdictional in nature” (People ex rel. Golston v. Kirkpatrick, 153 AD3d 1498, 1498–1499 [3d Dept 2017] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted], appeal dismissed 30 NY3d 1031 [2017], lv denied 31 NY3d 903 [2018]; accord People ex rel. Hook v. Tedford, 213 AD3d 1065, 1066 [3d Dept 2023]; see People ex rel. Rudolph v. Lilley, 215 AD3d 1196, 1197 [3d Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 907 [2023] ). Petitioner's jurisdictional challenge could have been raised on his direct appeal or in a CPL article 440 motion. Inasmuch as the circumstances here do not reflect any basis to depart from traditional orderly procedure, we agree with Supreme Court that habeas corpus relief is unavailable (see People ex rel. Nailor v. Rockwood, 215 AD3d 1159, 1160 [3d Dept 2023]; People ex rel. Smythe v. Miller, 182 AD3d 894, 894 [3d Dept 2020], appeal dismissed & lv. denied 35 NY3d 1056 [2020] ). Accordingly, Supreme Court's dismissal of petitioner's request for habeas corpus relief will not be disturbed.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

Garry, P.J., Clark, Pritzker, Fisher and Mackey, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network