We find it unnecessary to consider defendant's due process argument because we agree that even if the statute is construed in a manner most favorable to the plaintiffs, there has been no prima facie showing of jurisdiction in this case. The few cases on point indicate that in order to sustain jurisdiction under section 302(a)(3)(i), plaintiffs must demonstrate more than substantial revenue from sales to a New York entity, they must make some showing that the associated goods are "used or consumed" in New York. For example, in Young v. Mallet, 49 A.D.2d 528, 529, 371 N.Y.S.2d 1, 3 (1st Dep't 1975) (per curiam), the Court dismissed a suit against an out-of-state author, observing that "[b]ooks are not used or consumed nor are they services rendered." See also Buckley v. New York Post Corp., 373 F.2d 175 (2d Cir. 1967) (construing identical phrase in Connecticut's long-arm statute).

For example, in Bauer Industries, Inc. v. Shannon Luminous Materials Co., 52 A.D.2d 897 (2d Dept 1976), the court held that a California corporation and its principals were not subject to personal jurisdiction in New York in connection with a fraud action by a New York corporation which was distributing fluorescent pens manufactured by the defendants, where the defendants were not doing business or transacting business within New York State, despite the contention that the alleged false representation, mailed to plaintiff in New York, constituted the commission of a tortious act within New York. See also, Findlay v. Duthuit, 86 A.D.2d 789 (1st Dept 1982) (where defendant, in France, committed tort in the course of a phone call placed from New York to defendant, defendant did not commit a tortious act within the state); Young v. Mallet, 49 A.D.2d 528 (1st Dept 1975); Stein v. Annenberg Research Institute, 1991 WL 143400, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (One single telephone call made to New York State is insufficient contact to support a suit initiated in that forum against an out-of-state resident under either the contract or tort provisions of CPLR 302); CRT Invs., Ltd v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 85 A.D.3d 470, 471 (1st Dept 2011) (the sending of a limited number of emails and engagement letters into New York does not establish a defendant's presence in New York.). Moreover, in Waggaman v. Arauzo, 117 A.D.3d 724, 726 (2d Dept 2014), quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985) continued, "due process requires that a defendant be haled into court in a forum State based on his own affiliation with the State, not based on the "random, fortuitous or attenuated" contacts he makes by interacting with other persons affiliated with the State."

See also, Findlay v. Duthuit, 86 A.D.2d 789, 446 N.Y.S.2d 951, 953 (1st Dept., 1982) (where defendant, in France, committed tort in the course of a phone call placed from New York to defendant, defendant did not commit a tortious act within the state); Young v. Mallet, 49 A.D.2d 528, 371 N.Y.S.2d 1, 3 (1st Dept.,1975); Stein v. Annenberg Research Institute, 1991 WL 143400, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (One single telephone call made to New York State is insufficient contact to support a suit initiated in that forum against an out-of-state resident under either the contract or tort provisions of CPLR 302).