This action is based on the Ohio defendant's purchase of a diamond that plaintiff alleges both belonged to him and was sold without his consent. The allegations do not support jurisdiction over defendant by virtue of his continuous and systematic contacts with New York to satisfy the "doing business" test of CPLR 302 (a) (3) (i) ( see Landoil Resources Corp. v. Alexander Alexander Servs., 77 NY2d 28, 33-34). Nor is there any basis on which to invoke New York's long-arm jurisdiction (CPLR 302 [a] [1]). An out-of-state phone call to New York for the purpose of purchasing an item here, and defendant's subsequent transfer of payment to New York, do not constitute the active participation in business transactions that would require him to defend himself in our courts ( see L.F. Rothschild, Unterberg, Towbin v. McTamney, 89 AD2d 540, affd 59 NY2d 651; M. Katz Son Billiard Prods. v. Correale Sons, 26 AD2d 52, aff'd 20 NY2d 903; cf. Parke-Bernet Galleries v. Franklyn, 26 NY2d 13).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them without merit.