(S.D.N.Y.1986) (quoting Lewis & Eugenia Van Wezel Foundation, Inc. v. Guerdon Indus., Inc., 450 F.2d 1264, 1267 (2d Cir.1971)). It is the borrowing of the money, not simply the execution of notes, that is the transaction of the business. See Lewis & Eugenia Van Wezel Foundation, 450 F.2d at 1267; Catalyst Energy, 630 F.Supp. at 1316. Here, the money was borrowed from a New York bank in New York, $50,000 of which was then deposited into Chemical Bank in New York. The totality of Ziifle’s alleged acts, whereby she availed herself of the benefits and protection of New York law, constitute sufficient purposeful contacts with New York to bring her within the réaeh of § 302(a)(1) of New York’s long arm statute. See Bank of New York v. Strumor, 179 A.D.2d 736, 579 N.Y.S.2d 124 (2d Dep’t 1992) (<HOLDING>). Ziifle’s alleged contacts with New York also
holding that new york law applies to this matter 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 a financial guaranty payable in new york is a contract to perform services in new york subjecting foreign guarantor to jurisdiction under  302a1 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