Opinion
December 1, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
We have inspected the documents in the petitioner's file based upon which the respondent determined that he was an escape risk, and agree with the determination of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, that these materials were fully exempted from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6). All of these documents were interagency or intra-agency materials exempted under Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (g) and some were materials the disclosure of which could endanger the lives or safety of certain individuals, and thus were exempted under Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (f). The failure of the respondents and the Supreme Court, Westchester County, to disclose the underlying facts contained in these documents so as to establish that they did in fact fall "'squarely within the ambit of [the] statutory exemptions'" (Matter of Farbman Sons v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 62 N.Y.2d 75, 83; Matter of Fink v. Lefkowitz, 47 N.Y.2d 567, 571), did not constitute error. To make such disclosure would effectively subvert the purpose of these statutory exemptions which is to preserve the confidentiality of this information. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, proceeded properly by inspecting these materials in camera and assuring that they were in fact exempt (see, Matter of Farbman Sons v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., supra, at p 83).
Further, it is clear that Special Term was correct in holding that review of the October 23, 1983 determination denying the petitioner "outside clearance" was time barred under the four-month Statute of Limitations of CPLR 217. Special Term also correctly held that there was a rational basis for the continued denial of "outside clearance" to the petitioner on the ground that he is an escape risk (cf. Matter of Gregg v. Scully, 108 A.D.2d 748, 749; People ex rel. Williams v. Ward, 73 A.D.2d 941).
We have reviewed the petitioner's other contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.