Fischbarg v. Doucet

In Fischbarg v Doucet (38 AD3d 270, 832 N.Y.S.2d 164 [1st Dept], affd 9 NY3d 375, 880 N.E.2d 22, 849 N.Y.S.2d 501 [2007], out-of-state defendants retained a New York attorney. The plaintiff attorney performed over 200 hours of work in New York. The defendants called, faxed and e-mailed the attorney in New York, as well as discussed their case and made payments to plaintiff attorney in New York (38 AD3d at 272-275). Based on these contacts, the court found that defendants had transacted business. In Fischbarg v. Doucet, 9 NY3d 375, 383 (2007) the Court found that California defendants--who hired a New York lawyer over the telephone to represent them in litigation in Oregon, sent a letter confirming the hire ac-companied by relevant litigation documents, and stayed in constant communication with the attorney during the course of litigation--had the "quality of New York contacts" to be subjected to New York jurisdiction un-der 302 (a)(1). Id. at 380-81. The Court held that the defendants transacted business in New York by projecting themselves into the New York legal services market by soliciting a New York attorney to represent them and engaging in frequent communication with him here. Id. at 383-84.