## Facts

- Glennie Williams worked for the City of Yonkers as an environmental maintenance worker, a position requiring a valid New York State class B commercial driver’s license.
- The City notified Williams in June 2009 that he no longer had a valid class B license and warned that his employment would be terminated unless he produced proof of a valid license by August 28, 2009.
- The City sent a follow-up reminder in August 2009 reiterating the deadline and the consequence of termination.
- Williams did not provide proof of a valid license, and the City terminated his employment on August 28, 2009.
- In April 2013, Williams (pro se) filed a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the termination, asserting he had difficulty renewing the license due to a learning disability and that other sanitation workers allegedly lacked the required license but were not terminated; he sought reinstatement and back pay.
- In August 2013, the Supreme Court dismissed the article 78 petition as time-barred, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and as facially defective; Williams did not appeal.
- In August 2015, represented by counsel, Williams filed a civil action seeking damages for wrongful termination and alleging the City failed to provide support and accommodation needed to pass the written examination associated with maintaining the license.
- The Supreme Court dismissed the 2015 complaint on the City’s CPLR 3211(a) motion, and Williams appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the 2015 civil action was barred by res judicata based on the prior article 78 proceeding challenging the same termination.
2. Whether the article 78 proceeding and the later civil action arose from the same transaction or factual grouping under New York’s transactional approach to claim preclusion.
3. Whether the theories asserted in the 2015 action, including wrongful termination and failure to accommodate, were claims that were or could have been raised in the earlier article 78 proceeding.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the order dismissing the 2015 complaint, with costs.
- The court held the 2015 claims were barred by res judicata because they arose from the same factual grouping as the earlier article 78 proceeding concerning the loss of the required license and the resulting termination.
- The court concluded the claims asserted in 2015 could have been raised in the article 78 proceeding, and later pursuit of different legal theories and remedies constituted impermissible claim-splitting.

## Legal Principles

- Under New York’s transactional approach, res judicata bars litigation between the same parties of any claim arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions as a claim that was raised or could have been raised in a prior proceeding.
- Once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising from the same transaction are barred even if they rely on different legal theories or seek different relief.
- A prior article 78 judgment may have claim-preclusive effect against later civil actions when both matters arise from the same underlying events and the later claims could have been asserted earlier.

## Conclusion

The Appellate Division held that Williams’s damages action for wrongful termination and alleged disability-related accommodation failures was precluded by his earlier article 78 proceeding challenging the same termination, because both matters arose from the same transaction and the later theories could have been raised in the first proceeding.


Williams v. City of Yonkers, 160 A.D.3d 1017 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 2018)