For example, in Armada Supply, a foreign insurer had issued a certificate of insurance to a corporation qualified to do business in New York, for a cargo with the destination of New York. The contract was executed in Brazil. The Second Circuit upheld jurisdiction by applying the “contracts anywhere” wording in § 302(a)(1) in holding that the insurer “transacted business” in New York. Armada Supply, 858 F.2d at 849. The facts of this case clearly support jurisdiction under Armada Supply’s interpretation of the “contracts anywhere” language of § 302(a)(1). By providing insurance for a race horse quartered for nine months of the year within New York, Canadian “contracted to ... supply ... services in [New York],” Id.; cf. A.I. Trade Finance, Inc. v. Petra Bank, 989 F.2d 76 (2d Cir.1993)(<HOLDING>). The Court is not persuaded by Canadian’s
holding that a divorce granted at a foreign consulate in new york was not valid for immigration purposes because it did not comply with new york law 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 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 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 a financial guaranty payable in new york is a contract to perform services in new york subjecting foreign guarantor to jurisdiction under  302a1