The court properly dismissed the complaint based on plaintiff's failure to establish that defendants had transacted business within the State, subjecting them to jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(1). Contrary to plaintiff's argument, sending faxes and making phone calls to this State are not, without more, activities tantamount to "transacting business" within the meaning of the aforecited long-arm statute. Nor was plaintiff entitled to additional discovery on the jurisdictional issue since she failed to come forward with tangible evidence sufficing to demonstrate that long-arm jurisdiction over defendants may exist (see, Mandel v. Busch Entertainment Corp., 215 A.D.2d 455).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.