CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF NEW YORK, Respondent,
STATE of New York et al., Appellants (two cases.)
Court of Appeals of New York.
Feb. 15, 1979.
Proceedings were instituted to obtain access to all files of the Commissioner
of Mental Hygiene and the Attorney General concerning petitioner corporation,
its affiliates and its leadership. The Supreme Court, New York County, Arnold
L. Fein, and Hyman Korn, JJ., granted the application with limitations, and
State appealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 61
A.D.2d 942, 403 N.Y.S.2d 224, affirmed. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held
that: (1) petitioner would be entitled to access to files, and (2) Article 78
proceeding against Attorney General was not barred by statute of limitations.
Under provision of Freedom of Information Act, access to all files of
Commissioner of Mental Hygiene and Attorney General concerning petitioner
corporation, its affiliates and its leadership was granted. Public Officers
Law s 90 et seq.
Article 78 proceeding against Attorney General to obtain access to files
concerning petitioner corporation, its affiliates and its leadership was not
barred by statute of limitations. Public Officers Law s 89, subd. 4; CPLR
7801 et seq.
*907 ***901 **1216 Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. (Robert S. Hammer and
Samuel A. Hirshowitz, New York City, of counsel), for appellants.
David G. Lubell and Richard C. Hamlin, New York City, for respondent.
OPINION OF THE COURT
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
 The record on appeal is wholly insufficient to sustain the refusal to
disclose the materials sought by petitioner under the provisions of the Freedom
of Information Act (Public Officers Law, art. 6). In support of the denial of
access the *908 State officials have tendered only references to sections,
subdivisions and subparagraphs of the applicable statute and conclusory
characterizations of the records sought to be withheld. There is no tender of
any factual basis on which to determine whether the materials sought either
fell outside the scope of mandated disclosure under former section 88 (L.1974,
ch. 578, s 2; ch. 579, s 2; ch. 580, s 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1974) or come within
the exceptions specified in subdivision 2 of present section 87 of the Public
Officers Law (L.1977, ch. 933, s 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1978). Nor is there any
justification for remittal for In camera inspection. The parties resisting
disclosure made no request for such inspection. Indeed, the record contains no
predicate on which an application therefor might have been based.
 As to the Attorney-General's contention that the article 78 proceeding
against him was barred by the Statute of Limitations, it suffices to note that
the period of limitations ran from the date on which petitioner received notice
of the denial of its appeal under subdivision 4 of section 89 of the Public
Officers Law (8 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y. Civ. Prac., par. 7804.02, pp. 78-
COOKE, C. J., and JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER and FUCHSBERG, JJ., concur