What's the how to conclution of this case and the issue statement for an IRAC.

Travis Granato, a resident of Michigan, traveled to New York City to visit his brother. While there he stopped in an electronics store in the Union Square area, 14th Street Photo, Inc., a New York corporation. 14th Street Photo's assets were entirely located in New York State. It did, however, sell its products in interstate commerce through its website, including $45,000 of merchandise sold over the Web in the previous year to residents of Michigan. When a customer ordered from its website, 14th Street photo delivered that item to the customer using either UPS or FedEx. Granato became aware of 14th Street Photo and its products by searching online, and he decided to stop by 14th Street Photo's store to check out a Nikon camera in which he was interested. Granato purchased the camera at 14th Street Photo's store while he was in New York. He was given possession of the camera in New York, and he carried it back with him to Michigan. Once there, he discovered that the camera was not new, but reconditioned. He called 14th Photo, but it refused to refund his money. Granato sued 14th Street Photo in a Michigan trial court. Did the Michigan court have jurisdiction over 14th Street Photo