July 25, 2023
Gunnar Larson
xNY.io
Re: Freedom of Information Law request No. 2022-090560: Appeal dated October 13, 2022
of the Department of Financial Services’ October 12, 2022 response
Dear Mr. Larson:
By email dated November 2, 2022, you are appealing pursuant to New York State Public Officers
Law Section 89, the Department of Financial Services’ (the “Department”) October 12, 2022
response (the “Determination”) to your Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) request No. 2022-
090627 for copies of:
“… any and all records, relating to NY-DFS’ 2021 Apple Card Investigation.
This is one part of a broader discussion we must have about equal access. On
March 23, 2021, Mr. Linda Lacewell published NY-DFS’s Findings on Apple
Card and its Underwriter Goldman Sachs Bank. As the former Superintendent of
NY-DFS, Ms. Lacewell’s stone faced propaganda assured that Apple Card did not
discriminate against women while under Goldman Sachs management. The red
flags started to appear when an authorized user drew attention to the following: A
person who relies on a spouse’s access to credit, and only accesses those accounts
as an authorized user, may incorrectly believe they have the same credit profile as
the spouse. We recently collated 61 highlights to the Report on Apple Card
MVqlznMWDE9w8RRdmZCw/view. The Apple Card investigation was to
access women’s access to equitable finance. The integrity of the Apple Card
investigation must be rationally considered as flawed. We would like to receive
any and all records of Ms. Linda Lacewell’s (emails, texts, and similar)
involvement with the 2021 Card report. We would like to receive any and all
records to NY-DFS association to evaluating Ms. Linda Lacewell’s ability to
score a report specific to the Apple Card’s core subject of credit access for
women. Finally, we would like to receive any and all records related to NY-DFS guidance on Interlocking Directorates
for_Interlocking_Directors_and_Officers), specific to Apple’s Board of Directors
and Goldman Sachs’ Board of Directors.” [Sic]
In your appeal, you state:
“NY-DFS’ Apple Card Report records requested are key to deteriming any
collusion between former Superintendent Lacewell and Goldman Sachs
concerning women’s access to Apple Card. It would appear Bloombergh’s
reporting today confliects with NY-DFS Apple Card Investigation.” [Sic]
The Determination informed you that Public Officers Law (“POL”) § 89(3) requires a FOIL
request to reasonably describe the records sought meaning that the description of the documents
sought must be sufficient to allow the agency to locate and identify the documents requested.1
To
support its conclusion, the Determination explained that the New York State Committee on Open
Government (the “Committee”), which is responsible for, inter alia, issuing advisory opinions
regarding FOIL, has opined that “[w]hether a request reasonably describes the records sought . . .
may be dependent upon the terms of a request, as well as the nature of an agency’s filing or record-
keeping system.” Committee Opinion No.. FOIL-AO-16073 (July 17, 2006).2
The Determination also informed you that your FOIL request specifically failed to meet the
“reasonably describe” requirement in POL § 89(3) because of the very broad nature of the records
requested and your use of such expansive phrases such as “any and all,” and “relate to” when
applied to excessively broad categories.
I construe your FOIL request as four separate items:
1) Any and all records relating to NY-DFS’ 2021 Apple Card Investigation;
2) Any and all records of Ms. Linda Lacewell’s (emails, texts, and similar)
involvement with the 2021 Card report;
3) Any and all records relating to NY-DFS association to evaluating Ms. Linda
Lacewell’s ability to score a report specific to the Apple Card’s core subject of credit
access for women; and
4) Any and all records related to NY-DFS guidance on Interlocking Directorates.
With respect to items 1) and 2), I conducted a de novo search of the Department’s records, and the
Department has located additional records that may or may not be responsive to your request.
Accordingly, I am remanding this matter back to the records access officer so that a review can be
conducted and a determination made as to, among other things, whether: (i) such additional records
or any portions of such additional records are responsive to your request; and (ii) if responsive to
your request, whether such additional records or any portions thereof are exempt from disclosure
under FOIL, or are otherwise releasable to you.
With respect to item 3), I find that the request does not reasonably describe the records sought as
required by POL § 89(3) meaning that your description of the records sought is not sufficient to
allow the Department to locate and identify the records that you are requesting.
With respect to item 4) regarding Part 70 of the General Regulations of the Superintendent
(Interlocking Directors and Officers of Banking Organizations and Banking Holding Companies),
the Department has not issued an Industry Letter or any other written guidance regarding Part 70
and, therefore, there are no records responsive to your request.
Sincerely,
Christine M. Tomczak
Assistant Counsel
cc: NYS Committee on Open Government
One Commerce Plaza
99 Washington Avenue, Suite 650
Albany, NY 12231
