In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

above, Hotel Eden's motions to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction or for forum non conveniens are denied. The parties should appear for a scheduling conference on May 7, 2002, at 4:30 p.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 . Travel Bound's facsimile cover sheet refers to itself as "A Gulliver's Company." Cert, of Andrew Jacobs, Ex. N. 2 . There is no jurisdiction under New York's long-arm statute, C.P.L.R. 302(a), because there is an insufficiently strong connection between the reservations made inside the State of New York and the tort itself (requiring that causes of action brought under 302(a) arise out of the non-domiciliary's contacts with New York). See Noble v. Singapore Resort Motel of Miami Beach, 21 N.Y.2d 1006, 1008, 290 N.Y.S.2d 926, 927, 238 N.E.2d 328 (1968)
Holding statements: (A) holding jurisdiction over nonresident defendant existed where note was payable in new york contained new york choice of law clause and proceeds were used to finance new york limited partnership (B) holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york (C) holding that two meet ings in new york and numerous telephone calls and correspondence to new york were not sufficient to confer jurisdiction (D) holding that reservations made inside the state of new york were not closely related enough to alleged tort within florida hotel to warrant jurisdiction under cplr 302 (E) holding new york could lawfully modify a florida custody decree because florida court had right under florida law to change the decree
holding jurisdiction over nonresident defendant existed where note was payable in new york contained new york choice of law clause and proceeds were used to finance new york limited partnership