Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 2004

Williams v. New York State Higher Education Services Corp.

Williams v. New York State Higher Education Services Corp.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Decided January 12, 2004 · Carman, Jacobs, Straub
84 F. App'x 158

Counsel

Natalie M. Williams, New York, NY, for Appellant, pro se., Lawrence L. Glick, Garden City, N.Y. (Cheryl B. Fisher, New York State Higher Education Services Corporation, Office of Counsel — EFMC, Albany, NY, for The New York State Higher Education Services Corporation, on the brief; Sheila A. Denton, Pullman & Comley, LLC, Bridgeport, CT, for Educational Credit Management Corporation, on the brief; Lawrence L. Glick, Garden City, NY, for University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, on the brief), for Appellees.

Williams v. New York State Higher Education Services Corp.

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

SUMMARY ORDER

Debtor Natalie M. Williams appeals from the judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Scheindlin, J.), affirming the order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Blackshear, B.J.) and concluding that “Williams’ student loans cannot be discharged, forgiven, or deferred.” Familiarity is assumed as to the facts, the procedural context, and the specification of appellate issues.

In reviewing the district court’s disposition of a bankruptcy appeal, this Court reviews legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for clear error. E.g., In re Best Prods. Co., 68 F.3d 26, 29 (2d Cir. 1995). For substantially the reasons stated by the district court, its judgment upholding the bankruptcy court’s order is affirmed.

This Court previously denied Williams’ motion to proffer new evidence on appeal.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.