Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the motion of defendant, an Arkansas corporation, to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Although the choice of law clause contained in the parties' distributor sales agreement is a relevant factor in determining whether defendant transacted business in New York, "absent more, it is insufficient to warrant a finding of long-arm jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 302 (a) (1)" (Lisec Glastechnische Industrie GmbH v. Lenhardt Maschinenbau GmbH, 173 A.D.2d 70, 72). The record does not support plaintiff's contention that defendant engaged in sufficient purposeful activity in New York to confer personal jurisdiction over defendant ( see, Professional Personnel Mgt. Corp. v. Southwest Med. Assocs., 216 A.D.2d 958; Catauro v. Goldome Bank for Sav., 189 A.D.2d 747, 748; see generally, Kreutter v. McFadden Oil Corp., 71 N.Y.2d 460, 467).