Contrary to the determination of the motion court, we find that plaintiffs made a "sufficient start" (see Peterson v. Spartan Indus., 33 N.Y.2d 463) in demonstrating that defendants Taittinger, S.A. and Compagne Financier Taittinger were doing business in New York through their direct or indirect subsidiaries and thus "present" in the jurisdiction so as to furnish a jurisdictional predicate pursuant to CPLR 301. While a showing of agency for jurisdictional purposes will not be inferred from the mere existence of parent-subsidiary relationship (Porter v. LSB Indus., 192 A.D.2d 205, 213), at this juncture, plaintiffs should be allowed to learn whether the complex corporate relationships involved the parents' exercise of control over their subsidiaries. Discovery was properly denied as to the individual Taittinger family members and as to the other corporate defendants, in the absence of any basis for claiming that discovery would yield facts relating to their doing business in New York.
Nor was there any basis for discovery as to any of defendants under the less onerous showing for jurisdiction pursuant to the long arm statute. Although CPLR 302 is a "single act" statute, requiring proof of only one transaction in New York to invoke jurisdiction, there must be a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted (Kreutter v. McFadden Oil, 71 N.Y.2d 460, 46; see Samsung Am., Inc. v. GS Indus., 278 A.D.2d 138), which does not appear here. The claimed telephone calls with one of the individual defendants and the letters sent by another to New York are insufficient for this purpose (see Professional Personnel Mgt. v. Southwest Med. Assocs., 216 A.D.2d 958).
There was also no basis for jurisdiction, or discovery in aid thereof, as the result of a tortious act committed outside this state resulting in economic harm in New York (CPLR 302[a][3]; see Lancaster v. Colonial Motors Fright Line, 177 A.D.2d 152, 158). Although the dismissal against defendant Baccarat, S.A. was grounded solely on forum non conveniens, we find that, as with the other dismissed defendants, there was no personal jurisdiction over this defendant, and we modify the order and judgment accordingly.
In the absence of jurisdiction as to several defendants, and in the face of an unresolved jurisdictional question awaiting discovery as to two others, this Court may not reach the issue of whether dismissal should be based on forum non conveniens (see Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d 474, 478-480, cert denied 469 U.S. 1108; Matter of Estate of Obregon 230 A.D.2d 47, 54, affd sub nom Matter of Stern, 91 N.Y.2d 591). We note, however, that, under the totality of the circumstances, New York does not appear to be a convenient forum since the contacts with this jurisdiction are tenuous at best. All of the alleged wrongs emanate from conduct in France, it is undisputed that the witnesses and documents are located there (see e.g. Waterways Ltd. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 174 A.D.2d 324, 328-329), and it is likely that the resolution of certain issues will depend on the application of French law. Nor would the procedural differences between New York courts and the commercial courts of France warrant a different result on the ground that there is no other forum available, since that is only one factor in the court's exercise of discretion (see Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d 474, 481) and the other factors militate strongly against retention of this action in New York.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.