In Sedig v. Okemo Mountain, 204 AD2d 709, 612 NYS2d 643 [2nd Dept., 1994], the defendant, a ski resort in Vermont, sent personnel to New York to solicit business. The plaintiff was injured while skiing at the defendant's resort. The Second Department ruled that "the plaintiff's tort claim, originating from a ski slope injury in Vermont, is too remote from the defendant's alleged sales and promotional activities to support long-arm jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(1). Plaintiff presented no facts or arguments demonstrating a nexus between Defendant-Malliouhana's web based solicitations and Plaintiff's slip and fall. As such, Plaintiff's claim originating from a slip and fall at Defendant-Malliouhana's hotel is too remote from any web based solicitations to support 302(a)(1) long arm jurisdiction on this basis. As such, Plaintiff's proffer of the website is also inadequate to establish a basis for personal jurisdiction under 302. In the alternative, Plaintiff has asked for Peterson discovery. Under CPLR 3211(d), where it appears from affidavits submitted in opposition to a motion made under 3211(a) that facts essential to denying the motion may exist but cannot be stated, the court may deny the motion or order a continuance to permit further fact finding.