Summary
affirming a district court's order that a plaintiff could not "recover funds" the defendant "had turned over to the State of New York according to a tax levy," and finding the plaintiff's "jurisdictional arguments [were] misplaced," where the plaintiff had argued the defendant "should not have honored the levy because the funds it turned over were located in a Massachusetts account and 'not within the jurisdiction of the State of New York'"
Summary of this case from Regions Equip. Fin. Corp. v. Blue Tee Corp.Opinion
No. 94-3433.
Submitted May 4, 1995.
Decided May 8, 1995.
Frederick S. Cassman, Omaha, NE, for appellant.
Kathleen M. Quinn, Omaha, NE, for appellee.
Appeal from the United States Court for the District of Nebraska.
Before FAGG, MAGILL, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.
Amy Friedman appeals the district court's judgment on the pleadings in her action to recover funds that Fidelity Investments turned over to the State of New York according to a tax levy. Friedman argues Fidelity should not have honored the levy because the funds it turned over were located in a Massachusetts account and not "within the jurisdiction of the State of New York." Having carefully considered Friedman's claims, we agree with the district court that her jurisdictional arguments are misplaced and that New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 5209 (McKinney 1978) provides defendants with a complete defense to liability. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir.R. 47B.