In People ex rel. France v. Coughlin, 99 A.D.2d 599 (3rd Dept 1984) the court held that petitioner could not use a habeas corpus application to challenge his involuntary detention in protective custody to segregate him from potential retaliation by other inmates. The court noted that habeas is not available if petitioner does not claim entitlement to immediate release, unless the detention is in excess of what the sentence or constitutional guarantees require. The court also noted that administrative segregation of inmates is well within the terms ordinarily contemplated by a prison sentence, and that petitioner had not made a sufficient showing that his confinement violated his asserted constitutional rights. The appellate courts have established a clear view that a petitioner who wishes to challenge his administrative housing must use his administrative remedies, and appeal an adverse decision on a full record before seeking redress through the courts. And if such redress is sought, the proper approach is to bring an Article 78 proceeding to challenge administrative action, rather than to use an Article 70 habeas corpus application. People ex rel. Beyah v. Coughlin, 101 A.D.2d 901, 475 N.Y.S.2d 592 (3rd Dept 1984).