City of New York v. Evigo Corp.

Decision Date07 June 1954
Citation121 F. Supp. 748
PartiesCITY OF NEW YORK v. EVIGO CORP.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

Adrian P. Burke, Corporation Counsel, New York City, Stanley Buchsbaum, Alvin H. Kaufer, Isidore Friedman, New York City, of counsel, for plaintiff.

J. Edward Lumbard, U. S. Atty. for the So. Dist. of N. Y., New York City, Eliot H. Lumbard, New York City, of counsel, for defendant.

EDELSTEIN, District Judge.

The City of New York has moved to remand, or in the alternative for a preliminary injunction restraining the District Director of Internal Revenue from effecting a tax sale and for an order vacating five warrants for distraint. The case arose out of proceedings taken by the City of New York to collect certain City sales taxes due from the Evigo Corporation. Two warrants were docketed by the City against the corporation in the office of the Clerk of New York County, and subsequently a warrant officer of the City made a levy of the personal property of the corporation by means of a visual inspection. It is urged that these warrants are to be treated as judgments under section 3672 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 3672, and on them there is presently due $1,802.85 plus interest. The day following the levy by the warrant officer a United States Collection Officer, acting under the authority of five warrants for distraint issued by the District Director and arising out of the nonpayment of $3,701.14 in wage and excise taxes, levied upon the same personal property by seizure and assumption of full possession. Notice of the five United States tax claims was filed in the Register's office, but not until after the City warrants and levy. Then the District Director was served by the City with an order to show cause in the Supreme Court of the State of New York why he should not be restrained from selling the property which had been seized, and it was further requested that the Court vacate the outstanding United States warrants for distraint. The case was removed to this court on the petition of the United States.

The City of New York challenges the removal on the ground that the United States was not a defendant in the New York State court and that this court has no original jurisdiction of the matter. It is true that the United States was not served with process in the New York Supreme Court and was not technically a party to that action. But whatever the technical procedure adopted by the City, there can be no doubt that this is a contest between the City and the United States over, in the words of the Corporation Counsel's brief, priority for the satisfaction of the respective tax claims out of the property seized. The purpose and effect...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Glenmede Trust Company v. Dow Chemical Company, Civ. A. No. 74-2345.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • 25 Octubre 1974
    ...302 F.Supp. 785 (N.D.Ill.1969). The Court is not bound by the technical form of the state court proceeding, City of New York v. Evigo Corp., 121 F. Supp. 748, 750 (S.D.N.Y.1954), but is obligated to ascertain the underlying substantive interests of the parties in dispute and arrange the par......
  • Hussain v. Boston Old Colony Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 31 Octubre 2002
    ...law pleading, but with practical problems facing owners whose property was encumbered by government liens"); City of New York v. Evigo Corp., 121 F.Supp. 748, 750 (S.D.N.Y. 1954) (ignoring the technical procedures used by the City of New York and finding jurisdiction under §§ 2410(a) and 14......
  • Stapleton v. $2,438,110, 19287.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • 25 Enero 1972
    ...brought in state courts to foreclose their tax liens as against liens asserted by the United States, New York City v. Evigo Corp., 121 F.Supp. 748 (S.D.N.Y.1954), no cases have been brought to our attention permitting such an action when a county has sought to enforce a forfeiture. There is......
  • Hussain v. Boston Old Colony Ins. Co., 01-152.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
    • 13 Septiembre 2001
    ...299 (N.D.Miss. 1964); Chrysler First Financial Services Corp. v. Greenfield, 753 F.Supp. 939 (S.D.Fla.1991); City of New York v. Evigo Corp., 121 F.Supp. 748 (S.D.N.Y.1954); City of Miami Beach v. W.J. Smith, Jr., 551 F.2d 1370 (5th Cir.1977). While the United States was merely served with ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT