Friedman v. Fidelity Brokerage Services

Eighth Circuit

Friedman v. Fidelity Brokerage Services

56 F.3d 866, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 10163

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMay 8, 1995

Docket94-3433

StatusPublished

This text of 56 F.3d 866 (Friedman v. Fidelity Brokerage Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Friedman v. Fidelity Brokerage Services, 56 F.3d 866, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 10163 (8th Cir. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

56 F.3d 866

Amy FRIEDMAN, Appellant,
v.
FIDELITY BROKERAGE SERVICES, INC., and other Fidelity
entities, real names unknown; Fidelity Service
Corporation; National Financial
Services Corporation, Appellees.

No. 94-3433.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted May 4, 1995.
Decided May 8, 1995.

Frederick S. Cassman, Omaha, NE, for appellant.

Kathleen M. Quinn, Omaha, NE, for appellee.

Before FAGG, MAGILL, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

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 Sec. 5209 (McKinney 1978) provides defendants with a complete defense to liability. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir.R. 47B.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

56 F.3d 866

Amy FRIEDMAN, Appellant,
v.
FIDELITY BROKERAGE SERVICES, INC., and other Fidelity
entities, real names unknown; Fidelity Service
Corporation; National Financial
Services Corporation, Appellees.

No. 94-3433.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted May 4, 1995.
Decided May 8, 1995.

Frederick S. Cassman, Omaha, NE, for appellant.

Kathleen M. Quinn, Omaha, NE, for appellee.

Before FAGG, MAGILL, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

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 Sec. 5209 (McKinney 1978) provides defendants with a complete defense to liability. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir.R. 47B.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 F.3d 866, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 10163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friedman-v-fidelity-brokerage-services-ca8-1995.