Opinion
February 6, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
We reject the plaintiff's contention that personal jurisdiction over the defendants was established under CPLR 302 (a) (3) (ii). The plaintiff failed to establish that he sustained an injury within the State (see, Herman v. Sharon Hosp., 135 A.D.2d 682; Weiss v. Greenberg, Traurig, Askew, Hoffman, Lipoff, Quentel Wolff, 85 A.D.2d 861). Moreover, the plaintiff did not establish that the defendants derived substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce. Finally, under the circumstance of this case, where the defendants treated the plaintiff exclusively in Pennsylvania, to impose jurisdiction upon them would offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice (see, Etra v. Matta, 94 A.D.2d 581, affd 61 N.Y.2d 455). Sullivan, J.P., Miller, Copertino, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.