In Matter of Short v. Bd of Managers of Nassau County Medical Center (57 NY2d 399 [1982]), petitioner sought copies of 29 medical claim records, arguing that the records could be disclosed by deleting personal identifying information. The Court of Appeals found that the only claimed exception for which a responding agency is required to attempt redaction is the exemption of unwarranted invasion of personal privacy contained in Public Officers Law (POL) 87 (2)(b). In that case, section 87 (2)(a) of the Public Officers Law authorized the agency to deny access to records that "are specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal statute." The Court noted that Public Officers Law sections 87 (2)(b) and 89 (2) explicitly provide for the deletion of identifying details relating to unwarranted invasions of privacy, however, no such provision was made regarding any of the other seven categories of exemptions in Public Officers Law 87 (2). The Court reasoned that "[u]nder familiar canons of construction, the explicit authorization of the deletion device with respect to this one category of records imports a legislative intention to restrict the deletion device to that single category" and does not extend to records excepted in consequence of specific exemption from disclosure by state or federal statute. Id. at 405. Because the medical records were specifically exempt from disclosure under the state's Public Health Law, the Court of Appeals refused to characterize the records as "otherwise available," hence subject to deletion of identifying details. Id. at 403-405. Therefore, the Court concluded that the medical facility was not required to create a "cleaned-up" version of the requested medical records.