MERRILL LYNCH COMPANY, INC. v. MATHES

Jurisdiction over respondent was not properly exercised by the IAS Court pursuant to CPLR 302 (a) (1). Respondent's mailing of a claims statement to the New York office of the NYSE and obtaining a New York attorney were insufficient to constitute "purposeful" activity in this State (Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith v McLeod, 208 A.D.2d 81, 84; Matter of Painewebber, Inc. v McAdams, 212 A.D.2d 464).

Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.