Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly found that the petitioner was not entitled to relief. We have considered the petitioner's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit (see, Matter of Ganci v. Hammock, 120 A.D.2d 666; Matter of Wilson v. Town of Islip, 179 A.D.2d 763, 764). Miller, J.P., Altman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.
Courts addressing claims of partial exemption have not hesitated to permit redaction, in the first instance, by the public agency. (See, Matter of Wilson v Town of Islip, 179 A.D.2d 763, 764 [2d Dept 1992]; see also, Matter of Buffalo Broadcasting Co. v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., supra, 174 A.D.2d, at 215.) Despite the alternative of redaction, respondent takes the position that all of the descriptive material sought is exempt.