Respondents' response to petitioner's Freedom of Information Law request, providing certain documents and certifying that the other requested documents could not be found despite a diligent search, was proper ( see Public Officers Law § 89(3); Matter of Rattley v. New York City Police Dept., 96 NY2d 873, 875; and see Matter of Powell v. Bernhardt, 19 AD3d 307, 308, lv dismissed in part and denied in part ___ NY3d ___, 2005 NY LEXIS 3192 [2005]). Petitioner has offered no persuasive reason to reject respondents' statement of diligent efforts to locate the subject documents. Petitioner's remaining arguments are without basis.
Petitioner's post-judgment motions seeking reconsideration of the July 11, 2003 judgment, although denominated as motions seeking both reargument and renewal were, in fact, motions to reargue only, and no appeal lies from the denial of reargument ( see Davis v. City of New York, 11 AD3d 254, lv dismissed in part and denied in part 4 NY3d 750).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.