Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
sold two copies of the video to residents of Puerto Rico through the mail, and 2) Defendant sold 20 subscriptions to its magazine in Puerto Rico, in which they advertised the sale of the video. Defendant argues that LNE’s sale of two videos in Puerto Rico — one of which was purchased by Plaintiff Aníbal Agos-to — cannot logically be considered the legal or “proximate” cause of Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries since they were not a substantial factor in the sequence of events that led to the claimed injury. See Wilson v. Bradlees of New England, Inc., 250 F.3d 10, 17 (1st Cir.2001) (defendant’s actions will be considered the “proximate cause” of the alleged harm only if it was “a substantial factor in bringing about the harm.”); Merritt v. Shuttle, Inc., 13 F.Supp.2d 371, 378 (E.D.N.Y.1998) . As alleged in the Complaint, the overwhelming
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that television station was not subject to personal jurisdiction in  new york under that states longarm statute since libel claim did not arise from defendants delivery of mail orders to new york
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 outofstate defendants transmittal into new york of ceaseanddesist letter to new york plaintiff for purported trademark infringement was insufficient to create jurisdiction over defendant in a new york declaratory judgment action
D. holding that for purposes of longarm jurisdiction because plaintiff was employed in new york the original event causing his injury occurred in new york
E. 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
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.