On June 22, 2017, the First Department issued a decision in Ripplewood Advisors, LLC v. Callidus Capital SIA, 2017 NY Slip Op. 05157, holding that telephone and e-mail communications with New York were insufficient to create personal jurisdiction, explaining:
New York does not have personal jurisdiction over defendants pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(1), as they did not avail themselves of the privilege of conducting activities within this State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. The telephone and email communications between the Latvian defendants and plaintiff’s office in New York, concerning a contemplated association in the acquisition of a Latvian bank (with no presence in New York) undergoing privatization, do not suffice to constitute the transaction of business in New York. In so concluding, we find it persuasive that defendants never entered New York in connection with their dealings with plaintiff, that the parties’ electronic communications also ran between defendants and plaintiff’s London office, that plaintiff traveled to Latvia in connection with this matter, and that the parties’ contemplated association (if the bank were acquired) would be centered in Latvia.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).