LIBRA GLOBAL TECH. v. TELEMEDIA

Herman Cahn, J.

The IAS Court properly found that personal jurisdiction over defendant Telemedia International had not been obtained under CPLR 301, since Telemedia-USA, the New York premises of which were used in connection with the negotiation of the contract sued upon, although a wholly owned subsidiary of Telemedia International, was not a "mere department" thereof ( see, Delagi v. Volkswagenwerk AG, 29 N.Y.2d 426, 432; Taca Intl. Airlines v. Rolls-Royce of England, 15 N.Y.2d 97, 102). Nor was Telemedia-USA acting as Telemedia International's agent in the State of New York for jurisdictional purposes ( cf., Frummer v. Hilton Hotels Intl., 19 N.Y.2d 533, cert denied 389 U.S. 923).

Plaintiffs also failed to establish jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 302 (a) (1), New York's long-arm statute, since Telemedia International did not "project" itself into New York for jurisdictional purposes via the 45-minute video-conference, during which the parties negotiated a portion of their contract for the provision of worldwide telecommunications services ( see, Worldwide Futgol Assocs. v. Event Entertainment, 983 F. Supp. 173, 177). Further, where, as here, a defendant has signed a contract outside of this State, a court cannot exercise jurisdiction over that defendant pursuant to CPLR 302 (a) (1) based simply on the circumstance that the plaintiff signed in New York ( see, Standard Wine Liq. Co. v. Bombay Spirits Co., 20 N.Y.2d 13, 17; Millner Co. v. Noudar, Lda., 24 A.D.2d 326, 329-330). Finally, jurisdiction under the second prong of CPLR 302 (a) (1) cannot be based upon the existence of secondary contracts potentially involving defendant's provision of services in New York ( see, Worldwide Futgol Assocs. v. Event Entertainment, supra, at 181).