IN THE MATTER OF MATTHEW M. COBADO,PETITIONER-APPELLANT,V JOHN R. SEARLES, CATTARAUGUS COUNTYADMINISTRATOR RECORD APPEALS OFFICER,RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.MATTHEW M. COBADO, PETITIONER-APPELLANT PRO SE.ERIC M. FIRKEL, COUNTY ATTORNEY, LITTLE VALLEY, FORRESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.Appeal from a judgment (denominated order and judgment) of theSupreme Court, Cattaraugus County (Jeremiah J. Moriarty, III, J.),entered February 25, 2016 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78.The judgment dismissed the petition.It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from isunanimously affirmed without costs.Memorandum: Petitioner appeals from a judgment that dismissedhis CPLR article 78 petition seeking disclosure of certain documentspursuant to the Freedom of Information Law ([FOIL] Public Officers Lawart 6). We affirm. The District Attorney and the Deputy Chief ClerkofCattaraugus County Court certified that their respective agenciesdo not possess the requested documents (see§ 89 [3] [a];see alsoMatter of Rattley v New York City Police Dept.,96 NY2d 873, 875[2001];Matter of Gould v New York City Police Dept.,89 NY2d 267, 279[1996]). Even assuming, arguendo, that the documents requested bypetitioner under FOIL exist, including the requested “ConfidentialInformant(s) Sheet(s)” and “cooperative agreement(s),”we note thatrecords concerning confidential informants and cooperation agreementsare expressly exempted from disclosure under FOIL (see§ 87 [2] [e][i], [iii];Brown v Town of Amherst, 195 AD2d 979, 980 [4th Dept1993]). Thus, contrary to petitioner’s contention, the court properlydismissed the petition inasmuch as respondent’s denial of petitioner’sFOIL request was not affected by an error of law (see generally Matterof Spring v County of Monroe, 141 AD3d 1151, 1151 [4th Dept 2016]).Entered: June 8, 2018 Mark W. BennettClerk of the Court