Opinion
3628.
Decided May 13, 2004.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saralee Evans, J.), entered August 1, 2003, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen Hamilton, New York (S. Christopher Provenzano of counsel), for appellant.
Reiss, Eisenpress Eisenberg, New York (Sherri L. Eisenpress of counsel), for respondents.
Before: Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Ellerin, Williams, JJ.
The record provides no indication of a course of conduct within New York sufficient to support an exercise of jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 301 ( see Landoil Resources Corp. v. Alexander Alexander Servs., Inc., 77 N.Y.2d 28, 33; Holness v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 251 A.D.2d 220, 222). Nor does there appear to be any ground for an exercise of jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(1), since there has been no sufficient showing of conduct by which the non-domiciliary defendant purposefully availed herself of the privilege of transacting business so as to invoke the benefits and protections of New York's laws ( see Liberatore v. Calvino, 293 A.D.2d 217, 220; see generally Arista Tech. v. Arthur D. Little Enters., 125 F. Supp.2d 641, 649-650). The various telephone, fax and e-mail communications upon which plaintiff relies, purportedly concerning defendants' exhibition and sale of her art, are not, under the circumstances herein, adequate transactional predicates for an assertion of jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(1) ( see Libra Global Tech. Servs. (UK) Ltd. v. Telemedia Intl., Ltd., 279 A.D.2d 326; Worldwide Futgol Assocs. v. Event Entertainment, 983 F. Supp. 173, 177). Also insufficient to support an assertion of jurisdiction under that provision is the accommodation in accordance with which plaintiff's artwork was returned to New York ( see Cont. Field Servs. Corp. v. ITEC Intl., 894 F. Supp. 151, 154; Arista Tech., supra), and the circumstance that persons who might have viewed plaintiff's artwork in New York subsequently purchased it through defendant's foreign galleries. Moreover, plaintiff's general allegations regarding these transactions fail to make out the requisite connection with the alleged injury ( see Liberatore, 293 A.D.2d at 220; Holness, 251 A.D.2d at 224). Nor is there any basis for an assertion of jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(3), since this action sounds essentially in breach of contract, and not in tort ( see Arista Tech., 125 F supp 2d at 653-654). Finally, contrary to plaintiff's contention, discovery was not warranted since plaintiff failed to advance any non-conjectural ground to believe that the disclosure sought would be productive of evidence supporting an exercise of jurisdiction over defendants ( see Turbel v. Societe Generale, 276 A.D.2d 446, 447).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.