Opinion
92083
Decided and Entered: June 19, 2003.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Connor, J.), entered February 13, 2002 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of respondent denying petitioner's Freedom of Information Law request.
Charles Doyen, Sonyea, appellant pro se.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (Frank Brady of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters, Carpinello and, Lahtinen, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The pertinent facts underlying this proceeding in which petitioner seeks disclosure of certain documents under the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6) (hereinafter FOIL) can be found in a prior decision of this Court, as well as a decision of the Court of Appeals reversing us ( 271 A.D.2d 852, revd 95 N.Y.2d 738). Following the Court of Appeals' decision, the case was remitted to Supreme Court to permit respondent to make a particularized showing that each document requested by petitioner was exempt from disclosure under Civil Rights Law § 50-b. Ultimately, Supreme Court found that respondent made such a showing with respect to those items in his possession and respondent could not be directed to produce any document not in his possession. Accordingly, the proceeding was dismissed. Petitioner appeals.
Upon remittal, Supreme Court permitted petitioner to amend the petition to include respondent's denial of a May 2000 FOIL request for additional documents. This latter request was denied on the ground that respondent was unable to locate most of the requested documents and that the one remaining document was exempt from disclosure under Civil Rights Law § 50-b.
Upon our review of the record, particularly the documents submitted for this Court's in camera review, we agree with Supreme Court's conclusion that respondent established upon remittal that he either did not possess the requested documents (see Public Officers Law § 89) or that all withheld documents tend to identify the victim and were thus exempt from disclosure (see Public Officers Law § 87 [a]; Civil Rights Law § 50-b; see also Matter of Karlin v. McMahon, 96 N.Y.2d 842, 843). The amended petition was therefore properly dismissed. Finally, as petitioner was provided with a redacted copy of an investigation report in response to his FOIL requests, the $15 fee charged by respondent did not exceed that authorized by statute (compare Public Officers Law § 87 [b] [iii], with Public Officers Law § 66-a).
Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.