For a plaintiff to demonstrate personal jurisdiction in New York, what limitations must be considered?

In New York, to establish personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the plaintiff must consider specific standards set forth in the Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR). The correct approach involves evaluating the general jurisdiction standard as outlined in CPLR 301, which addresses the ability to bring an action against a defendant based on their substantial presence or activities in New York, and the long-arm jurisdiction provisions found in CPLR 302, which allow for jurisdiction based on specific acts that connect a defendant to the state.

Establishing general jurisdiction means showing that the defendant has substantial contacts with New York, which can include having a physical business presence, conducting regular business activities, or being incorporated in the state. In contrast, long-arm jurisdiction under CPLR 302 is invoked when the defendant's actions directly relate to the lawsuit and can be proven to have caused harm within New York or they engaged in particular conduct that would reasonably lead to being subjected to New York's laws.

The other options do not accurately reflect the requirements for establishing personal jurisdiction in New York. For instance, partisan consent is not a primary factor; rather, jurisdiction must be grounded in statutory authority. State financial contributions by the plaintiff or solely relying on federal jurisdiction standards do not connect directly to personal jurisdiction analysis