CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Brantley

Plaintiff Robert Williams sued defendant Hugh Brantley in state court for malicious prosecution and false arrest after criminal harassment charges brought by Brantley were dismissed. Brantley, an attorney for federally funded Western New York Rural Legal Services, removed the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), claiming he acted under the color of his federal office. Williams moved to remand the case to state court, arguing Brantley lacked a federal immunity defense. The court, citing Willingham v. Morgan, found that Brantley raised a colorable defense of absolute or qualified immunity, distinguishing Ferri v. Ackerman. The federal court held it was the appropriate forum to decide the merits of Brantley's defense, and consequently, Williams' motion to remand was denied.

Federal Officer RemovalMalicious ProsecutionFalse ArrestFederal ImmunityColor of OfficeRural Legal ServicesMotion to Remand28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1)Immunity DefenseMigrant Labor Camp
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Forbes

Joseph Patrick Williams was injured in a 1984 fall at the Armbrusters' property where William Forbes was a general contractor. Williams, who received workers' compensation benefits, sued Forbes and the Armbrusters. Forbes, having impleaded Williams's employers David Rowe and D. Rowe Home Improvements, sought to amend his answer to include a Workers' Compensation Law defense and moved for summary judgment, which the court denied, although it granted the Armbrusters' cross-motion for summary judgment. Forbes appealed the denial of his summary judgment motion. Williams subsequently moved to dismiss Forbes's appeal as untimely. The court denied Williams's motion, ruling that the 30-day appeal period under CPLR 5513(a) only begins when the appellant is served notice of entry by the prevailing party, not by co-defendants like the Armbrusters. Consequently, Forbes's appeal was deemed timely.

AppealTimeliness of AppealService of NoticeCPLR 5513Workers' Compensation DefenseSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissNassau CountyAppellate DivisionPrevailing Party
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.

Plaintiff Mildred W. Williams, a black female, filed a federal lawsuit against Chase Manhattan Bank alleging racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and New York State Human Rights Law. Williams claimed she was denied promotions from Assistant Manager to Branch Manager and Assistant Manager to Assistant Treasurer, and subjected to harassment based on her race. The court addressed Williams' motion to file a second amended complaint and Chase's motion to dismiss. Applying the precedent set in Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, the court granted Williams' motion to amend, allowing her claim regarding the denial of promotion to Assistant Treasurer, as it constituted a "new and distinct relation" with the employer. However, the claim for denial of promotion to Branch Manager was dismissed for not meeting this criterion. The court also maintained pendent jurisdiction over Williams' state racial harassment claims.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationMotion to AmendMotion to DismissCivil Rights Act of 1866New York State Human Rights LawPatterson v. McLean Credit UnionPromotion DenialAssistant Manager to Assistant TreasurerContinuing Violations Doctrine
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2006

Williams v. 520 Madison Partnership

Plaintiff Trevor Williams was injured on June 3, 2002, when a scaffold basket he was using to repair a 43-story building moved due to a gust of wind, causing him to fall. The Supreme Court, New York County, initially granted Williams' motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denied defendants' cross-motion. This appellate order unanimously affirmed that decision. The court found that the scaffold provided was inadequate, violating Labor Law § 240 (1), and this violation was a proximate cause of Williams' injuries. It rejected the defendants' arguments that the gust of wind was an unforeseeable intervening act or that Williams' actions constituted comparative negligence.

Labor Law Section 240(1)Scaffold AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentProximate CauseForeseeabilityIntervening ActComparative NegligenceConstruction AccidentWorkplace Safety
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Axelrod

Deon Williams, a two-year-old with sickle-cell anemia, was a participant in the WIC program. His benefits were terminated after his mother, Doris Williams, had a physical altercation with a caseworker at Bronx-Lebanon Hospital. An Administrative Law Judge upheld the termination, but Deon Williams, through his mother, initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding against David Axelrod, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health, seeking reinstatement of his benefits. The court found that Deon met all eligibility requirements and should not be penalized for his mother's actions, citing judicial precedents that protect children from losing public assistance due to parental misconduct. The court ultimately held that the ALJ's determination was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law, ordering the reinstatement of Deon Williams' WIC certification and restoration of withheld benefits.

WIC ProgramChild Nutrition ActPublic Assistance BenefitsSickle-Cell AnemiaParental MisconductCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewBenefit TerminationChild WelfareDue Process
References
5
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00226 [234 AD3d 774]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2025

Matter of Reid v. Williams

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, regarding related custody proceedings between Devon Reid (father) and Tibuananna D. Williams (mother). The Family Court granted the father's petition for sole legal and physical custody of their twin sons, denied the mother's petition for sole legal custody, and directed that the mother's parental access be virtual and supervised, contingent upon the children's consent. Additionally, the mother's motion to hold the father in contempt for violating a prior order was denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's order, finding its determinations regarding custody, parental access, and the denial of the contempt motion to have a sound and substantial basis in the record.

Child CustodyParental AccessFamily LawBest Interests of ChildrenContempt MotionAppellate ReviewCredibility AssessmentForensic EvaluationIn Camera InterviewSupervised Visitation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. New York City Housing Authority

Plaintiffs Gregory Williams and Leroy Williams, African-American caretakers, sued the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) for hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII. The complaint arose after they discovered a noose hanging in their supervisor's office. Despite its removal upon confrontation and a formal complaint, plaintiffs alleged subsequent retaliatory treatment. NYCHA filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the hostile work environment claim, arguing the conduct was not severe or pervasive enough. The District Court denied NYCHA's motion, emphasizing the profound and intimidating historical significance of a noose as a symbol of racial violence, particularly when displayed by a white supervisor.

Hostile Work EnvironmentRacial DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIIWorkplace HarassmentNoose SymbolismDistrict Court DecisionMotion to Dismiss DeniedAfrican-Americans' RightsSupervisor Misconduct
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2015

Williams v. Savory

Plaintiff Marissa Williams sued the City of New York, the NYPD, and 12 individual ACS employees and attorneys under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of her federal constitutional rights arising from the emergency removals of her daughters in 2009 and 2013, and subsequent Family Court proceedings. The District Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. The Court dismissed Williams' Sixth, Eighth, and Thirteenth Amendment claims and ruled that claims related to the 2009 removals were time-barred. It also found ACS lawyers protected by absolute immunity and ACS high-ranking officials by supervisory liability principles. For the 2013 removal, the Court determined that ACS had "objectively reasonable" evidence of imminent harm to the child, justifying the emergency removal and negating due process and false arrest claims. Furthermore, the Court rejected Williams' equal protection and municipal liability claims due to insufficient evidence.

Child RemovalChild NeglectChild AbuseSummary Judgment42 U.S.C. Section 1983Procedural Due ProcessSubstantive Due ProcessFourth AmendmentFalse ArrestQualified Immunity
References
74
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 07383 [211 AD3d 1616]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2022

Williams v. Kaleida Health

Dr. Aston B. Williams, a physician with medical staff privileges at Kaleida Health, sought a medical exemption from a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which was subsequently denied. As a result of noncompliance, his privileges at Buffalo General Medical Center were suspended. Williams initiated legal action, requesting injunctive relief to prevent the revocation of his privileges. Kaleida Health moved to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court denied Williams's motion for an injunction and partially granted Kaleida Health's motion, dismissing the complaint without prejudice. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed this decision, determining that Public Health Law § 2801-c provides the exclusive remedy for alleged violations of § 2801-b (1), necessitating Williams to first pursue his claim before the Public Health and Health Planning Counsel.

COVID-19 vaccine mandatemedical staff privilegesinjunctionPublic Health Lawexclusive remedyPHHPCadministrative remediesdismissal without prejudicehealth care workersemployer-employee dispute
References
4
Case No. 2016-06683
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2018

Williams v. City of Yonkers

Glennie Williams, an environmental maintenance worker for the City of Yonkers, was terminated in 2009 for failing to maintain a valid Class B commercial driver's license. After an initial CPLR article 78 proceeding was dismissed as time-barred and for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in 2013, Williams commenced a new action in 2015 against the City for wrongful termination and violations of Executive Law § 296. The Supreme Court granted the City's motion to dismiss the complaint, finding the first two causes of action barred by the doctrine of res judicata and the third and fourth causes of action barred by the three-year statute of limitations. The Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, upholding the dismissal of all claims on the grounds of res judicata and the statute of limitations.

Wrongful TerminationRes JudicataStatute of LimitationsAppellate ReviewEmployment LawCPLR Article 78DiscriminationCommercial Driver LicenseCollective Bargaining AgreementDismissal of Complaint
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 24,727 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational