The opinion of the court was delivered by: COSTANTINO
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER
COSTANTINO, District Judge.
This action was commenced by the filing of plaintiff's complaint alleging wilful and malicious breach of contract, interference with contract, and seeking money damages, exemplary damages and costs. The defendants have moved to dismiss alleging lack of in personam jurisdiction or alternatively to transfer the venue of the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404. For the reasons set forth below, the defendants' motions are hereby denied.
Plaintiff, Round One Productions, Inc., ("Round One") is a New York corporation, engaged in the business of packaging and promoting sporting events, including boxing matches. Defendant, Greg Page Enterprises, Inc. ("GPE") is a Kentucky corporation formed for the purpose of promoting and managing the boxing career of Greg Page, a heavyweight fighter, by and through the efforts of Albert Page and Dennis Page, Greg Page's father and uncle, who serve as co-chairmen of the Board of GPE and are named as co-defendants herein. In addition, during the events giving rise to this lawsuit GPE maintained a contractual relationship with a New York corporation, Butch Lewis Productions for the advancement of the career of Greg Page.
In their business capacities and for the purpose of exploring the potential for a business relationship, representatives of Round One and defendants met in New York City on two or more occasions over a period of several months. (The parties herein differ as to the exact dates of those meetings, which took place within the general parameters of October 1979 to April 1980.) On May 7, 1980 a contract for three boxing matches to be fought by Greg Page and promoted by Round One was entered into by the parties in Louisville, Kentucky. The first of these three matches was scheduled for and actually took place on May 16, 1980. Disagreements as to the disbursement of receipts following that fight led to the alleged breach which is the subject of the instant complaint.
In determining the amenability of a foreign corporation to suit in federal court, the court is bound by the standards of the state in which that federal court sits, as long as such standards meet the constitutional due process guarantees. Arrowsmith v. United Press International, 320 F.2d 219 (2d Cir.1963); Gelfand v. Tanner Motor Tours, Ltd., 385 F.2d 116 (2d Cir.1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 996, 88 S. Ct. 1198, 20 L. Ed. 2d 95 (1968). Therefore, New York Law applies herein.
The New York long-arm statute, CPLR § 302(a)(1) provides:
(a) Acts which are the basis of jurisdiction. As to any cause of action arising from any of the acts enumerated in this section, a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any nondomiciliary, or his executor or administrator, who in person or through an agent:
1. transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state; . . .
Further, as recently reiterated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Mayes v. Leipziger, 674 F.2d 178 (2d Cir.1982), any exercise of in personam jurisdiction must satisfy the constitutional due process standard established by International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S. Ct. 154, 90 L. Ed. 95 (1945). In that case the Supreme Court stated that "due process require[d] only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'" 326 U.S. at 316, 66 S. Ct. at 158 (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S. Ct. 339, 342, 85 L. Ed. 278 (1940)). Moreover, the New York Court of Appeals has interpreted § 302(a)(1) as extending jurisdiction over a nondomiciliary who "in person . . . transacts any business within the state" reaching a defendant that "purposely avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within [New York], thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws." McKee Electric Co. v. Rauland-Borg Corp., 20 N.Y.2d 377, 382, 283 N.Y.S.2d 34, 229 N.E.2d 604 (1967), quoting Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S. Ct. 1228, 1239, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1283 (1958); see Longines-Wittnauer Watch Co. v. Barnes & Reinecke, Inc., 15 N.Y.2d 443, 458, 261 N.Y.S.2d 8, 209 N.E.2d 68 (1965).
New York courts have further held that a consideration of the totality or combination of factors, rather than the presence or absence of any one factor, will be determinative of in personam jurisdiction under CPLR § 302(a). See Longines-Wittnauer Watch Co. v. Barnes & Reinecke, Inc., supra; Parke-Bernet Galleries v. Franklyn, 26 N.Y.2d 13, 308 N.Y.S.2d 337, 256 N.E.2d 506 (1970); McKee Electric Company, Inc. v. Rauland-Borg Corp., 20 N.Y.2d 377, 283 N.Y.S.2d 34, 229 N.E.2d 604 (1967); George Reiner & Co. v. Schwartz, 41 N.Y.2d 648, 394 N.Y.S.2d 844, 363 N.E.2d 551 (1977).
In Longines-Wittnauer, supra, the New York Court of Appeals held that merely because the final agreement between the parties was not signed in New York did not constitute sufficient grounds for dismissal on the basis of lack of in personam jurisdiction. Over a two month period the parties in Longines-Wittnauer conducted negotiations in both New York and Chicago. Defendants visited plaintiffs' manufacturing plant in New York in connection with the contract for sale of specially designed machines. The original contract, although signed in Chicago, indicated the parties' choice of forum to be New York; a supplemental agreement was actually executed in New York. Defendant's machines were shipped to New York, and the machines were serviced by defendant's engineers in New York over a two month period. The court held that the defendant had sufficiently availed itself of New York law by its combination of activities within the state to permit the exercise of in personam ...