In Grimaldi v. Guinn, 72 AD3d 37 (2d Dept 2010) the facts showed that plaintiff was an owner of a 1969 Chevrolet Camaro. Plaintiff purchased a vintage Chevrolet "cross-ram" manifold and carburetor assembly. He contacted the defendant Wayne Guinn about the installation of the foregoing on the Camaro. Plaintiff claimed that he had a series of communications with Mr. Guinn about the installation through numerous tel-ephone calls, faxes, and emails. Plaintiff also viewed defendant's website. The plaintiff delivered the vehicle to Mr. Guinn at a repair shop in Pennsylvania. The plaintiff stated that the car was disassembled but the work was never completed. Plaintiff was sent pic-tures of the vehicle showing some progress. Despite promises of a completion date, the car was not com-pleted and the work was not done in a workmanlike manner. Plaintiff recovered the vehicle from defendant in a disassembled state, which caused the vehicle to be re-duced in value from approximately $100,000 to a nominal amount. The Second Department sustained jurisdiction even though a single transaction was involved. The Court discussed the difference between active and passive web sites and those falling in the mid-dle ground between the two ends: At one end of the spectrum are situations where a defendant clearly does business over the Internet. If the defendant enters into contracts with residents of a foreign jurisdiction that involve the knowing and repeated transmission of computer files over the Internet, personal jurisdiction is proper. At the opposite end are situations where a defendant has simply posted information on an Internet Web site which is accessible to users in a foreign jurisdiction. A passive Web site that does little more than make information available to those who are interested in it is not grounds for the exercise (of) personal jurisdiction. The middle ground is occupied by interactive Web sites where a user can exchange information with the host computer. In these cases, the exercise of jurisdiction is determined by examining the level of interactivity and commercial nature of the exchange of information on the Web site. Moreover, if "the foreign company maintains an informational Web site accessible to the general public which cannot be used for purchasing services or goods, then most courts would find it unreasonable to assert personal jurisdiction over that company." Id. However, "passive Web sites when combined with other business activity, may provide a reasonable basis for the assertion of personal jurisdiction." Id. Finally, if a "Web site provides information, permits access to e-mail communication, describes the goods or services offered, downloads a printed order form, or allows online sales with the use of a credit card, and sales are, in fact, made in this manner in the forum state, particularly by the injured consumer, then the assertion of personal jurisdiction may be reasonable". Id.