With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to an in-state transaction, even if the claim did not “arise from” that transaction. See e.g., George Reiner & Co. v. Schwartz, 363 N.E.2d 551, 554 (N.Y. 1977) (concluding there was jurisdiction over a Massachusetts resident for breach of an employment contract entered into in New York); Singer v. Walker, 209 N.E.2d 68 (N.Y. 1965) (sustaining jurisdiction because plaintiffs personal injury claim resulting from the use of a defective hammer arose from “the purposeful activities engaged in by [defendant]” in New York “in connection with the sale of its products in the New York market”). On the other hand, New York courts have also held that jurisdiction is not justified where the relationship between the claim and the transaction is too attenuated. See e.g., Talbot, 522 N.E.2d at 1027 (<HOLDING>); Ward, 829 N.E.2d at 1203 (concluding that

A: 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
B: 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
C: holding that the nexus between a coachs defamation action and a former students pursuit of a college degree in new york was insufficient to support jurisdiction
D: 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.