Appeal from an order of the District Court of Suffolk County, Fourth District (Gigi A. Spelman, J.), entered August 18, 2006. The order granted defendant's motion to vacate a default judgment and dismissed the action.

Order affirmed without costs.

In this breach of contract action, defendant alleged in his affidavit in support of his motion to vacate a default judgment that he is a resident of Kentucky and the court lacked jurisdiction over him. Plaintiff contacted defendant in Kentucky by e-mail to purchase a baseball card, which defendant then mailed to plaintiff. When plaintiff was not satisfied with the card's authenticity, defendant agreed to refund the full purchase
price upon receipt of the baseball card. Plaintiff did not refute these allegations in opposition to the motion. Defendant alleged that he never received the baseball card from plaintiff and refused to give plaintiff a refund. In opposition to the motion, plaintiff asserted that he has proof that he mailed the baseball card back to defendant. The court below granted defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment and dismissed the action on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction over defendant.

Pursuant to UDCA 404 [a] [1], the District Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident of Suffolk County where the non-resident "transacts any business within a district of the court in the county." In order to subject defendant to the jurisdiction of the court, due [*2]process requires "certain minimum contacts . . . such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice" (International Shoe Co. v Washington, 326 US 310, 316 [1945]). There must be an articulable nexus between the business transacted and the cause of action sued upon (see McGowan v Smith, 52 NY2d 268, 272 [1981]). Since the plaintiff contacted defendant via e-mail to purchase the baseball card, the evidence did not establish that defendant purposely availed himself of the privilege of transacting "business within a district of the court in the county " (UDCA 404 [a] [1]; Kinco
Exchange Place Corp. v Thomas Benz, Inc., 34 AD3d 433, 434 [2006]). Accordingly, the order vacating the default judgment and dismissing the action is affirmed.

Rudolph, P.J., McCabe and Molia, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: September 24, 2007