Finally, after Susser failed to repay the Note on time, he started sending payments to O’Mahoney in New York in 2004, and in 2009, asked O’Mahoney to send him a list of payments received and interest calculations so that he could “continue to move forward on the same page.” O’Mahoney Aff., Mar. 3, 2011, Ex. 4, J.A. 39. Susser’s initiation of a transaction aimed at securing money from New York, his meeting in New York with the lender and discussion of final details regarding the Note, and his transmittal of monies to New York to satisfy the Note’s obligations, together distinguish this case from others in which this court has held an out-of-state defendant’s contacts to be insufficient under § 302(a)(1). See Fiedler v. First City Nat’l Bank of Houston, 807 F.2d 315, 318 (2d Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>); Beacon Enters., Inc. v. Menzies, 715 F.2d
holding that two telephone calls and mailing from texas for purpose of finalizing repayment of guarantees on loan from texas bank insufficient to create jurisdiction under new york law holding that jurisdiction existed over two georgia residents who leased a machine from a texas resident because they 1 solicited and negotiated the lease agreement by two telephone calls to texas 2 sent correspondence and payments by mail to texas 3 paid for the transfer of the machine from texas and 4 caused their insurance agent to contact the texas resident in texas to arrange coverage for the machine holding that where the entity was incorporated in texas and the shareholders reside in texas and the bankruptcy case is pending in texas texas law  not arizona law  should be applied holding that oklahoma law firms receipt and deposit of texas clients payments drawn on a texas bank were fortuitous and thus insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction against firm in texas state court holding that two meet ings in new york and numerous telephone calls and correspondence to new york were not sufficient to confer jurisdiction