In Montgomery v. Minarcin, 245 AD2d 920 (3d Dept. 1997) the Court expressly held that the ""inclusion of the phrase without prejudice, on the grounds that there is a lack of complete diversity between the parties' in the stipulation dismissing the Federal action constitutes an express statement' of intent that the action would be recommenced in another forum and the failure to insert an explicit reference to CPLR 205(a) should not be fatal to recommencement". (Montgomery v. Minarcin, supra.) In Montgomery v. Minarcin, 263 AD2d 665 (3rd Dept. 1999), it was stated: "CPLR 302 (a) (1) applies, inter alia, to a defendant, such as [Wilson], who is a domiciliary of this State at the time he commits one of the alleged acts, but is a non-domiciliary at the time of the lawsuit. Further, while defamation claims are excluded from CPLR 302's tort provisions, personal jurisdiction over a nondomiciliary defendant in a defamation action has been sustained under CPLR 302 (a) (1) where the action arises out of a defendant's transaction of business in New York. Plaintiff's maintenance of this defamation action against [Wilson and Dana] ... [nondomiciliaries] under CPLR 302 (a) (1) requires a showing that [they] engaged in purposeful activities within this State and demonstration of a substantial relationship between those activities and the causes of action ... ." Here, it is undisputed that all of the operative facts giving rise to the plaintiff's claims occurred in this State." In Montgomery v. Minarcin, (263 AD2d 665 [3d Dept 1999]) it was undisputed that "all of the operative facts giving rise to plaintiff's claims occurred in this State. The television news reports were broadcast by Minarcin in this State . . . and the newscasts were researched, written, produced and reported by Minarcin in this State". Minarcin "extensively investigated" the reports over a six-week period in New York, interviewing New York residents and elected officials and reviewing documents located in New York. These activities were deemed substantial enough for purposes of concluding that Minarcin transacted business in New York "within the intendment of CPLR 302(a)(1)" (id. at 668).