Transmitted by Email to
Mr. Gunnar Larson
406 West 25th Street
New York, New York 10001
Re: Freedom of Information Law request No. 2022-090440: Appeal dated September 30,
2022 of the Department of Financial Services’ September 19, 2022 response
Dear Mr. Larson:
By email dated September 30, 2022, you are appealing pursuant to New York State Public Officers
Law Section 89, the Department of Financial Services’ (the “Department”) September 30, 2022
response (the “Determination”) to your Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) request No. 2022-
090440 for
“[A]ny and all records related to New York State and NYS-DFS’ approach to
enforcement of “Permission for Interlocking Directors and Officers” as per
licensing/banks_and_trusts/other/Permission_for Interlocking
Directors_and_Officers. In addition, we would like to receive and and all records
associated with filed permissions for interlocking directorates at the NAACP and
leadership/leadership/board-of-directors/adebayo-o-ogunlesi.html). Finally, we
would like to receive any and all records related to NY-DFS monitoring of
Goldman Sachs’ minority scholarship fund support in Africa (and how any non-
approved interlocking directorates may be engaged in AML violations).”
In your appeal, you state that “[s]pecific to scholarships in Africa, Goldman Sachs has issued
advertisements as principal funder of Africa’s largest online University. DFS having no records associated with ‘one of the world’s largest minority scholarship programs. . .’ that is funded out of
New York would allude to willful negligence on behalf of New York’s financial regulators.”
The Determination informed you that a search was conducted for records relating to (1) Part 701
compliance for Messrs. Ogunlasi and Rose and (2) references to Goldman Sachs’ minority
scholarship programs in Africa. It also informed you that your request for “any and all records
related to New York State and NY-DFS approach to enforcement of ‘Permission for Interlocking
Directors and Officers’ ” was vague and improper.
After conducting a de novo search of the Department’s files concerning the above described (1)
and (2), I was unable to locate any records concerning these matters. Therefore, I affirm the
Determination in its conclusion that there are no records regarding these subjects in the
Department’s files.
Furthermore, with your respect to your request for “any and all records related to New York State
and NY-DFS approach to enforcement of ‘Permission for Interlocking Directors and Officers’ ” I
find that the request does not not reasonably describe the records sought from the Department
because FOIL requires that a requestor must describe the records sought and provide sufficient
detail so that the agency can identify and locate the records requested.
A FOIL request is not reasonably described if the agency cannot locate the requested record using
its indexing or filing system, or, with respect to the agency’s electronic records, there is no single
search term or combination of search terms that will result in the location of the record. See Asian
American Legal Defense & Educ. Fund v. NYC Police Dep’t, 41 Misc.3d 471 (Sup. Ct. N.Y.
County 2013), aff’d 125 A.D.3d 531 (1st Dep’t 2015). Additionally, where an agency must
manually review voluminous records simply to locate responsive records, courts have held that
such a request does not reasonably describe the records sought. Badar v. Bove, 273 A.D.2d Dep’t
2000), appeal den. 95 N.Y.2d 764 (2000) (finding that a request for “[a]ll notes, records,
correspondence, meeting minutes and other records related to the adoption and/or revision of the
Village Zoning Code’s prohibition of commercial activity” was not reasonably described).
When a FOIL request requires an agency to make subjective judgments to determine whether to
determine whether a record is responsive, that a request may be found to have not reasonably
described the records. For instance, in the Committee on Open Government (“Committee”)
Opinion No. FOIL-AO-11960 (February 17, 2000), the Committee opined that a FOIL request that
sought records “tending to support” a particular statement, or “utilized”, “used” or “relating to”
“various activities” was not reasonably described request for records under Public Officers Law
Article 6. A response to such a request “would involve making subjective judgments a series of
judgments based on opinions, some of which would be subjective, mental impressions”, and
require “ascertaining which records might ‘tend to support’ a statement [that] would involve an attempt to render a judgment regarding the use, utility, accuracy or value of records.” The
Committee futher opined that “for purposes of [FOIL], a request for such materials would not meet
the standard of ‘reasonably describing’the records sought, for such a request would not enable the
Department to locate and identify the records in the manner envisioned by that statute.” See also
Committee Opinion No. FOIL-AO-12012 (March 28, 2000), in which the Commttee opined that
a request for “documentation utilized by SED to evaluate ‘certain needs, actions and functions’
was not reasonably described request for records under FOIL.
Accordingly, I affirm the Department’s Determination.
Sincerely,
Christine M. Tomczak
Assistant Counsel
cc: NYS Committee on Open Government
One Commerce Plaza
99 Washington Avenue, Suite 650
Albany, NY 12231;l
