JONES v. MUNROE (2003)

Order entered June 9, 2003 (Anil C. Singh, J.) affirmed, without costs.

Civil Court properly dismissed the complaint based on plaintiff's failure to establish that the Florida-domiciled defendants transacted business within New York City (see, CCA 404[a][1] ) by selling an automobile to plaintiff through “E-bay,” an online auction house.   The isolated sales transaction, the result of “random” and “attenuated” contacts, was insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction (see, Winfield Collection, Ltd. v. McCauley, 105 F.Supp.2d 746, 749 [E.D.Mich.2000];  Metcalf v. Lawson, 148 N.H. 35, 802 A.2d 1221, 1226 [2002] ), particularly in these circumstances where delivery of the car undisputedly was made in Florida (cf., Jardin Fashions of Paris, Ltd. v. Flying Tiger Line, Inc., 110 A.D.2d 587, 488 N.Y.S.2d 7 [1985] ).   Nor did defendants' conduct in sending faxes and e-mails or making phone calls to New York City constitute the transaction of business within the meaning of the applicable long-arm statute (see generally, Granat v. Bochner, 268 A.D.2d 365, 702 N.Y.S.2d 262 [2000] ).

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.

PER CURIAM.