executed in Belgium. (Bernstein Aff. ¶ 16, Exs. C and F; De Beule Supp. Deck ¶ 7; De Beule Deck ¶ 16). Aquiline also argues that Financial Architects’ executives projected themselves into New York via repeated phone calls and emails. Courts have consistently held, however, that such correspondence with New York does not support the exercise of personal jurisdiction where the undisputed facts demonstrate that the defendant “did not seek out a New York forum.” Pryor, Cashman, Sherman & Flynn v. Haisfield, No. 90-3586(RWS), 1990 WL 165687, at **2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 1990) (finding two meetings in New York and telephone calls and correspondences from Florida to New York insufficient to confer jurisdiction); PaineWebber Inc. v. Westgate Group, Inc., 748 F.Supp. 115, 119 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (<HOLDING>); WHV, Inc., 1995 WL 296398 at *3 (finding
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 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 holding that two meet ings in new york and numerous telephone calls and correspondence to new york were not sufficient to confer jurisdiction holding that the defendant did not project itself into new york by sending numerous telecopies and faxes to plaintiffs new york offices where preliminary discussions and negotiations took place in texas 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