With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". shown that the Defendants had sufficient minimum contacts with New York to exercise personal jurisdiction over them without violating due process and offending traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Jurisdiction Over NIBC Has Not Been Established With respect to NIBC Capital, Aquiline has not cited to a New York contact of jurisdictional significance. As noted above, the Plaintiff has not contested the facts set forth in the Verhoog Declaration. While Plaintiff alleges that NIBC Capital sent certain emails and faxes to New York in response to Aquiline’s solicitation of business in Belgium, those sporadic contacts are not sufficient to establish specific jurisdiction over NIBC Capital. See, e.g., Pryor, Cashman, Sherman & Flynn v. Haisfield, 1990 WL 165687, at **2-3 (<HOLDING>). Bernstein acknowledges in her affidavit that

A: 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
B: holding that two meet ings in new york and numerous telephone calls and correspondence to new york were not sufficient to confer jurisdiction
C: 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
D: 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.