Opinion
July 19, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
We find that the Supreme Court properly denied the appellants' motion for summary judgment with respect to the question of personal jurisdiction. It is well settled that a nonresident need not be physically present in New York State as a prerequisite to obtaining jurisdiction over the nonresident (see, Teachers Ins. Annuity Assn. v. Butler, 592 F. Supp. 1097). CPLR 302 expressly contemplates the exercise of jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant who never physically enters the State but performs purposeful acts in the State (see, Kreutter v. McFadden Oil Corp., 71 N.Y.2d 460; see also, Picard v. Elbaum, 707 F. Supp. 144) . Accordingly, CPLR 302 provides that a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any nondomiciliary who in person or through an agent transacts business within the State (see, Kreutter v. McFadden Oil Corp, supra, at 467; CutCo Indus. v. Naughton, 806 F.2d 361). Here, the appellants' actions in transacting business in New York through the use of telephones, "faxes", and wire transfers as well as through its agents, makes the exercise of personal jurisdiction appropriate. Further, the plaintiffs' claims are sufficiently related to the business transacted such that it would not be unfair to subject the appellants to suit in New York (see, CutCo Indus. v Naughton, supra, at 365; McGowan v. Smith, 52 N.Y.2d 268; Hoffritz For Cutlery v. Amajac, Ltd., 763 F.2d 55).
Nor did the Supreme Court err in denying that branch of the appellants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the case on forum non conveniens grounds (see, Banco Ambrosiano v Artoc Bank Trust, 62 N.Y.2d 65). The appellants have failed to demonstrate that the New York forum chosen by the plaintiffs was inappropriate. Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.