portions of certain claims otherwise barred under California labor law. 4 . This Court has recently- noted — in related litigation — that the applicability of the extrinsic evidence exception in New York is “unclear.'’ IBM v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 303 F.3d 419, 426 (2d Cir.2002). But see Allstate Ins. Co. v. Zuk, 78 N.Y.2d 41, 45, 571 N.Y.S.2d 429, 574 N.E.2d 1035 (1991) (noting that the relevant complaint alleged a potential basis for coverage but recognizing that "an insurer can be relieved of its duty to defend if it establishes as a matter of law that there is no possible factual or legal basis on which it might eventually be obligated to indemnify its insured”) (emphasis added); Avondale Indus., Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 774 F.Supp. 1416, 1424-26 (S.D.N.Y.1991)
holding jurisdiction over nonresident defendant existed where note was payable in new york contained new york choice of law clause and proceeds were used to finance new york limited partnership holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york holding that new york law applies to this matter recognizing the rule and surveying new york law holding that outofstate defendants transmittal into new york of ceaseanddesist letter to new york plaintiff for purported trademark infringement was insufficient to create jurisdiction over defendant in a new york declaratory judgment action