With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that the Agreement was negotiated, at least in part, in New York.”). Therefore, if characterized as a contract dispute, the preliminary meetings, general conversations, and exchanges of drafts would be particularly relevant to the venue determination. Conversely, the Defendants rely on cases decided in the more traditional legal malpractice context, where, although not a bright line rule, most courts have found that the alleged malpractice, not the entire attorney-client relationship is the relevant inquiry. The location of the attorney is not only relevant to the where the legal work was performed, but is also relevant in regards to any communications. See, e.g., Astor Holdings, Inc. v. Steefel, Levitt & Weiss, P.C., No. 03-CV-1242, 2003 WL 21108316, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. May 14, 2003) (<HOLDING>); Saferstein v. Paul, Mardinly, Durham, James,

A: holding that for purposes of longarm jurisdiction because plaintiff was employed in new york the original event causing his injury occurred in new york
B: 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
C: holding that judge in southern district of new york could authorize wiretap in maryland
D: holding that venue was not proper in the southern district of new york where the plaintiff resided because the allegedly erroneous advice to file a case in new york that could result in a finding of civil contempt against the plaintiff originated from the defendants office in california
D.