Respondent does not sustain its burden of showing that he diligently searched for the vouchers, videotape and the write-ups petitioner seeks under Requests 4, 6 and 7 (see, Matter of Key v Hynes, 205 A.D.2d 779, 781). Respondent should search the file of Spiro Varsos for whom petitioner was convicted of committing murder, and should also represent how it stores videotapes. Nor does respondent specifically deny the existence of or otherwise specifically justify his refusal to disclose records sought under Requests 9, 10 and 11 (see, Matter of Fink v. Lefkowitz, 47 N.Y.2d 567, 571; Matter of Mantica v. New York State Dept. of Health, 94 N.Y.2d 58, 1999 N.Y. LEXIS 3442). Accordingly, respondent is also directed to determine whether such records exist, and, if they do, to either provide them to petitioner or indicate why they are exempt. We have considered and rejected petitioner's other claims.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.