Summary
holding that mailing a statement of claim to the New York office of the NYSE and obtaining a New York attorney were insufficient to constitute purposeful activity in New York
Summary of this case from Credit Suisse SecuritiesOpinion
February 23, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.).
Jurisdiction over respondent was not properly exercised by the IAS Court pursuant to CPLR 302 (a) (1). Respondent's mailing of a claims statement to the New York office of the NYSE and obtaining a New York attorney were insufficient to constitute "purposeful" activity in this State (Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith v McLeod, 208 A.D.2d 81, 84; Matter of Painewebber, Inc. v McAdams, 212 A.D.2d 464).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.