Respondent asserts that it never responded to petitioner's request because it never received it, and argues that even if it had received the request it would not have responded to it, or at best would have denied it, because it seeks the same information as a prior request that had been fully processed. Upon review of the two requests, we find that they are duplicative, and, accordingly, the instant proceeding was properly dismissed as a belated attempt to seek judicial review of the denial of the first request (CPLR 217; see, Matter of Corbin v. Ward, 160 A.D.2d 596, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 706; Matter of Van Steenburg v. Thomas, 242 A.D.2d 802, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 803).
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Lerner, Mazzarelli and Buckley, JJ.