Opinion
January 18, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner, a prison inmate, requested four items from the New York State Police pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law art 6), in connection with his trial and conviction of murder in the second degree in 1981 (see, People v Calvin of Oakknoll, 110 A.D.2d 1044). The State Police denied his request, and the petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. We conclude that the Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceeding.
Any issue with respect to the release of item 1 is academic since the petitioner concedes that he received this item from another source (see, Matter of Newton v. Police Dept., 183 A.D.2d 621; see also, Matter of Pordum v. Nyquist, 42 N.Y.2d 958). With respect to items 2, 3, and 4, counsel for the State Police submitted an affirmation stating that he had reviewed the relevant police file, and that it did not contain the requested material. The Supreme Court did not err in relying on this representation, particularly since the petitioner failed to offer a factual basis for his claim to the contrary (see, Matter of Ahlers v. Dillon, 143 A.D.2d 225; see also, People v. Poole, 48 N.Y.2d 144) but, instead, offered only speculation (see, Matter of Corbin v. Ward, 160 A.D.2d 596).
We have reviewed the petitioner's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., O'Brien, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.