Which is more correct: "denied of" or "denied to"?

When a verb represents an action that takes something from the direct object of the verb, of is quite common. e.g.

The warden stripped Chris of his privileges.
His parents deprived Chris of his breakfast.
The pickpocket dispossessed Chris of his wallet.
The vampire drained Chris of all his blood.
He planned to rob Chris of over three hundred dollars.
She cheated Chris of his life savings.
Chris had pruned the tree of its dead branches.
His mother would usually trim Chris' steak of its fat.
Chris cleaned the yard of fallen leaves.
The court cleared Chris of all charges.

It's possible

They denied Chris his rights.

occasional gets shifted to

They denied Chris of his rights.

because it "feels like" deny is a standard taking-away-from verb here. But none of the verbs listed above would use to when making the removed thing the direct object. If anything, they use from:

privileges were stripped from Chris
blood was drained from Chris
branches were pruned from the tree

So deny is not a standard member of that class. And if we trust google ngram, 'deny of' only exists as 'noise' compared to plain 'deny'