Opinion
November 2, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Levitt, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The New York State Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law § 85 et seq.) requires disclosure of the documents of a public agency unless that agency can convincingly demonstrate that the documents fall squarely within one of the specific exemptions which are set forth in the statute. To this end, Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (g) provides:
"2. Each agency shall, in accordance with its published rules, make available for public inspection and copying all records, except that such agency may deny access to records or portions thereof that * * *
"(g) are inter-agency or intra-agency materials which are not:
"i. statistical or factual tabulations or data;
"ii. instructions to staff that affect the public [or]
"iii. final agency policy or determinations".
The purpose of the exemption under Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (g) is "to protect the deliberative process of the government by ensuring that persons in an advisory role would be able to express their opinions freely to agency decision makers" (see, Matter of Sea Crest Constr. Corp. v. Stubing, 82 A.D.2d 546, 549).
In the case at bar, after an in camera inspection of the documents in issue, we conclude that these records fall squarely within the protection of Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (g), insofar as they consist only of opinions, advice, evaluations, deliberations, proposals, policy formulations, conclusions, or recommendations (see, National Labor Relations Bd. v. Sears, Roebuck Co., 421 U.S. 132). Accordingly, these documents are exempt from public access, as government agency deliberative functions would certainly be hindered by the disclosure of such subjective matter (see, Matter of McAulay v. Board of Educ., 61 A.D.2d 1048, affd 48 N.Y.2d 659; Ryan v. Department of Justice, 617 F.2d 781). Moreover, with respect to the documents identified as F-6(1) and F-6(2), we conclude that these are attorney-client communications, and, as such, are exempt from disclosure pursuant to CPLR 4503 (a) (see, Matter of Grand Jury Subpoena [Bekins Record Stor. Co.], 62 N.Y.2d 324). Mangano, J.P., Thompson, Lawrence and Harwood, JJ., concur.