S.D.N.Y.: “Unconscionable breakdown” in SW litigation process can state habeas claim, but petitioner doesn’t plead or show one

“Petitioner does not argue that he was not provided a correct procedure to redress his Fourth Amendment claim. And indeed, there is no basis for such an argument, as the Second Circuit has indicated that New York’s procedure for litigating Fourth Amendment claims is ‘facially adequate.’ Capellan v. Riley, 975 F.2d 67, 70 n.1 (2d Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). Petitioner also has not argued that the process by which he litigated his Fourth Amendment claims resulted in an unconscionable breakdown. Rather, he has merely disagreed with the trial court’s decision on his motion. See id. at 72 (‘[A] mere disagreement with the outcome of a state court ruling is not the equivalent of an unconscionable breakdown in the state’s corrective process.’). Because the state did not fail to provide a ‘corrective procedure,’ and because the record reflects no ‘unconscionable breakdown’ of that procedure, Judge Fox correctly found that Petitioner’s Fourth Amendment claim could not be brought in a habeas petition.” Elliot v. Kirkpatrick, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212518 (S.D. N.Y. Nov. 13, 2020).*