From the NYAG's opposition to the motion for a stay:
Second, Ms. Trump owns and uses real property in New York, which is enough to give rise to personal jurisdiction here. See C.P.L.R. 302(a)(4). The unrefuted documentary record demonstrates that Ms. Trump, through various corporate entities, owns an apartment in the Trump Park Avenue building in Manhattan and owns a tenancy interest (through at least 2031) in another apartment in the same building. (See Ex. 1, Trump Park Avenue Unit PH20 Documents; Ex. 2, Trump Park Avenue Unit 6G Emails.) Such real-estate interests in New York are sufficient for personal jurisdiction, particularly given that OAG intends to prove at trial that defendants fraudulently and illegally inflated the value of the very apartment owned by Ms. Trump (see Ex. B, Compl. ¶¶ 107-12). See also Sen v. GR Realty Holdings LLC, 202 A.D.3d 580, 580 (1st Dep’t 2022). Though Ms. Trump’s counsel stated that she “is not a resident of the State of New York and does not maintain a residence there” (Ex. 3, Moskowitz Affirm. ¶ 3), Supreme Court properly did not accept counsel’s representations that were made without personal knowledge and that are refuted by the documentation of her Manhattan real-estate interests.
Third, Ms. Trump still transacts business in the State, which also suffices for personal jurisdiction. See C.P.L.R. 302(a)(1). Aside from the corporate entities relating to her personal real-estate interests and other corporate ownership interests, Ms. Trump is the sole member of Ivanka OPO LLC, which has its principal place of business in the Trump Organization’s headquarters in Trump Tower in Manhattan (Ex. 4, Ivanka OPO LLC Operating Agreement § 1.7), and a member of TTT Consulting LLC, which is undisputedly based in New York (see Memo. of Law in Supp. of NonParty Ivanka Trump’s Mot. to Quash at 4, People v. Trump, No. 452564/2022 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County Oct. 19, 2023), NYSCEF Doc. No. 1566).2 Those entities’ conduct of business is pertinent to OAG’s claims. Ivanka OPO LLC received the wrongful proceeds of the sale of the Old Post Office building at issue in this matter, and TTT Consulting, LLC received proceeds from real-estate licensing deals that defendants falsely and misleadingly inflated in Donald J. Trump’s statements of financial condition. (Ex. B, Compl. ¶¶ 34, 554.)
Fourth, Supreme Court has general jurisdiction over numerous corporate entities (such as Ivanka OPO LLC) that have listed their principal place of business as New York and that were subpoenaed in New York. See People v. Trump, 217 A.D.3d 609, 612 (1st Dep’t 2023) (holding the same as to other Trump Organization entities). In subpoenaing an entity in New York, OAG may properly “compel the entity to produce a specific individual to testify” by “identify[ing] the individual to be produced” in the subpoena. 4A N.Y. Prac., Com. Litig. in N.Y. State Courts § 46:5 (4th ed. Oct. 2023 update) (Westlaw). As this Court has held, a subpoena may thus properly identify and require “the sole officer” of a corporate entity to testify. B & D Jewelry Corp. v. Schneier, 78 A.D.2d 809, 810 (1st Dep’t 1980). Here, because Ms. Trump is the sole member of certain entities (such as Ivanka OPO LLC), the subpoenas properly identify her as the witness to be produced. (E.g., Ex. G, Ivanka OPO LLC Subpoena.)
Ms. Trump’s arguments are based on the false premise that witnesses with relevant, firsthand knowledge may be called to testify only if they are “a primary actor” in the case. (See Mot. at 10 (quotation marks omitted).) In fact, OAG is generally entitled to call any “competent witness who possesses information relevant to such action.” See Kajoshaj v Greenspan, 88 A.D.2d 538, 539 (1st Dept 1982). Ms. Trump errs in arguing that specific jurisdiction applies only to “the defendant” (Mot. at 9 (emphasis in original) (quotation marks omitted)), when in fact the governing statute provides for “personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary,” C.P.L.R. 302 (emphasis added). Contrary to Ms. Trump’s argument based on citations to trial-court decisions (Mot. at 14), this Court has applied such specific jurisdiction to out-of-state nonparty witnesses. See American Dental Co-op., Inc. v. Attorney Gen. of State of N.Y., 127 A.D.2d 274, 280 (1st Dep’t 1987); see also La Belle Creole Intl. v. Attorney-Gen., 10 N.Y.2d 192, 197-98 (1961). Ms. Trump cites Judiciary Law § 2-b as a statutory limit on Supreme Court’s subpoena power (Mot. at 14), but that statute pertains to out-of-state “service of a subpoena” and not to personal jurisdiction. See DuPont v. Bronston, 46 A.D.2d 369, 371 (1st Dep’t 1974); Peterson v. Spartan Indus., Inc., 40 A.D.2d 807, 807 (1st Dep’t 1972).
I thought it was weird that they were making a motion based on lack of personal jurisdiction and irreparable harm without an affidavit from Ivanka herself. NYS courts can be surprisingly lenient with attorney hearsay affidavits in lieu of admissible evidence, usually when there's no real dispute about the factual content of the affidavits, but I wouldn't have taken the chance here. Of course, it's possible that she couldn't honestly provide an affidavit that would support her position.