We affirm for reasons different from those stated by the CPLR article 78 court. We find that respondent met its obligations under FOIL (Public Officers Law § 84 et seq.). Respondent satisfied the requirements of Public Officers Law § 89 (3) by certifying that it had conducted a diligent search for the documents it could not locate ( see Matter of Bridgewater v Johnson, 44 AD3d 549). It properly deleted identifying characteristics of witnesses from certain documents on the ground that disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy ( see Public Officers Law § 87 [b]). It properly withheld, pursuant to the public interest privilege, the statements of two witnesses who spoke with law enforcement personnel ( see Sanchez v City of New York, 201 AD2d 325). Respondent was not required to provide either reprints of photographs ( Matter of Adams v Hirsch, 182 AD2d 583) or duplicative documents ( see Matter of Cobb v Lombardi, 261 AD2d 172).