into the state for the singular purpose of securing $100,000 from Schwartz, a New York resident. Not only did Susser admit to making a series of telephone calls to New York in order to negotiate the terms of the loan, but he also admitted to meeting Susser in New York two months before he executed the Note. Although Susser claims that the New York meeting “was a brief social contact for a drink,” Appellant’s Br. 11, 42, and not initiated for purposes of negotiating the Note, he acknowledges that the Note was among the matters discussed. See Chloe v. Queen Bee of Beverly Hills, LLC, 616 F.3d 158, 163 (2d Cir.2010) (noting that in prima fade review, “we construe the pleadings and affidavits in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, resolving all doubts in their favo 766 (2d Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). In short, having sought out a particular New
holding that for purposes of longarm jurisdiction because plaintiff was employed in new york the original event causing his injury occurred 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 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 new york law applies to this matter 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