We find, under the circumstances presented, that petitioner is entitled to the documents that had previously been provided to his former attorney during his criminal prosecution to the extent they are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to FOIL. Petitioner offered satisfactory proof that his former attorney did not provide him with the documents, was no longer in possession of them and is no longer practicing law and has been disbarred. These unique facts sufficiently demonstrate that those documents are no longer available to petitioner ( see, Matter of Swinton v. Record Access Officers for City of N.Y. Police Dept., 198 A.D.2d 165; Matter of Moore v. Santucci, 151 A.D.2d 677).

The court properly denied access to statements made by individuals alleged by petitioner to be "known informants". Disclosure of such documents, if they exist, would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, might endanger the safety of the informants and would necessarily reveal documents compiled for law enforcement purposes that would identify a confidential source. Therefore, they are exempt from disclosure under FOIL (Public Officers Law § 87 [b], [e] [iii]; [f]; see also Matter of Gould v. New York City Police Dept., 89 N.Y.2d 267).

We have reviewed petitioner's other contentions and find them without merit.

Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.