Badger v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co., 45 A.D.2d 601, 360 N.Y.S.2d 523 (4th Dept. 1974). Plaintiff's general comment about defendant's activities in New York does not satisfy this test, particularly in the face of defendant's detailed description of her activities in connection with her relationship with plaintiff. Even if defendant had participated in a brief training session in New York, that alone would not subject her to jurisdiction here. It is undisputed that the contract was executed and performed in Illinois and that plaintiff had initially contacted defendant in that State. The present case is thus distinguishable from George Reiner Co. v. Schwartz, 49 A.D.2d 58, 371 N.Y.S.2d 177 (3rd Dept. 1975), in which the defendant was subject to jurisdiction because he had purposefully come into New York to be interviewed and to sign a contract for a position as an out-of-state sales representative for a New York corporation. Plaintiff attempts to add New York contacts to defendant by alleging that its New York office approved her clients, its New York collectors worked on some of her clients' claims, and she received her check from its New York office.
Specifically, plaintiff failed to show that the New Jersey-domiciled defendants, a construction company and its principal, engaged in any purposeful activity within New York City in relation to the contract to renovate plaintiff's New Jersey residence (see Francis v Hogan, 55 Misc.3d 138 [A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50538[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2017]; Rodriguez v Universal Prod. Concepts, Inc., 33 Misc.3d 139 [A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52106[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2011]). Although plaintiff alleges that the underlying contract was signed in New York City, this "last act marking the formal execution of the contract" (George Reiner & Co. v Schwartz, 49 A.D.2d 58, 59 [1975], affd 41 N.Y.2d 648 [1977], quoting Longines-Wittnauer Watch Co. v Barnes & Reinecke, 15 N.Y.2d 443, 457 [1965], cert denied 382 U.S. 905 [1965]), was insufficient to confer jurisdiction, where the contract involved performance outside of New York City and there was no indication the contract was negotiated here (see Presidential Realty Corp. v Michael Sq. W., 44 N.Y.2d 672 [1978]; Wilson v Dantas, 128 A.D.3d 176, 183-184 [2015], affd 29 N.Y.3d 1051 [2017]; Abbate v Abbate, 82 A.D.2d 368, 384 [1981]; Vincent C. Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, CPLR C302:6).