Petitioner applies, by writ of habeas corpus, for release from an order of conditions [*2]imposed upon him, pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law §330.20 in 1996 and extended until 2011. Respondent opposes the application on the ground that proceeding by writ of habeas corpus is unavailable to the petitioner.

In New York State, habeas corpus is available to "a person illegally imprisoned or otherwise restrained in his liberty" (CPLR §7002[a]). In this case, there is no claim of illegal imprisonment. In order to prevail on the writ then, petitioner must demonstrate a restraint on his liberty that is severe, otherwise he must rely upon more conventional remedies (see: Hensley v Municipal Court, 411 US 345). In New York State, conditional releases which involve some restraint on a person's comings and goings are not considered sufficient to warrant the extraordinary relief afforded by habeas corpus (People ex. rel. Birt v Grenis, 76 AD2d 872) and nothing in the order of conditions imposed upon petitioner, viewed against the backdrop of a homicide, are so egregious as to warrant such a proceeding.

Moreover, the legislature, in enacting CPL §330.20, set out exacting procedures by which insanity acquittees can test psychiatric determinations in court at various stages of confinement both for the protection of the committed individual and for the protection of society. Absent extraordinary circumstances, those procedures established by the legislature should not be circumvented by the judiciary.

The writ is dismissed.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the court.

____________________________

Matthew J. D'Emic

J.S.C.