—the New York Court of Appeals held that the writ of error coram nobis is the appropriate remedy to set aside a judgment obtained in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights but that the writ is not available in New York to attack a judgment rendered in another jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that it is only the court where the defendant is tried and convicted which possesses the power to hear and determine a motion in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis

Prior to the recent amendment of section 1943 of the Penal Law (L. 1964, ch. 446), there was no procedure in this jurisdiction whereby a defendant could challenge the constitutionality of a prior out-of-State conviction either at the time he was adjudged a multiple offender or at some later time

That remedy is not available to challenge the validity of a prior out-of-State conviction in a court of this jurisdiction

—the court of appoala hold that a defendant "may not in this State challenge the validity of a judgment of a court of another jurisdiction," upon which multiple offender treatment has boon predicated, unless there is a showing "that the defendant may not seek redress for the alleged violation of constitutional right in the court wherein the judgmont was rendered.''Until this rule …

Apparently cognizant of the legislation then before the Governor, and awaiting signature or veto, Mr. Justice CONROY in his decision on the defendant's motion said: "The law as it now exists does not permit the defendant in this State to challenge the validity of the judgment of a court of another jurisdiction

New York state courts will not review judgments of other jurisdictions on habeas corpus or coram nobis.

This allegation is supported by the fact that New York does not permit collateral attack upon foreign convictions which are used as a basis for sentence under the state multiple offender law.

—had an opportunity to challenge the Michigan conviction and that his failure to do so barred him from applying for relief in the Federal Courts. In short, that he had an available remedy under New York law and procedure but had waived it. The contention was overruled by the District Court, the writ of habeas corpus was granted and petitioner was ordered before the State …