Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
instant case is analogous to Niedland, in that Plaintiffs post-trial submissions c one at issue in Marba, the size of the grant and the fact that it was issued for purely private purposes leads me to find that the Dongan grant violated the public trust doctrine. Plaintiff therefore cannot claim title to the foreshore adjacent to his property from this source. Furthermore, while the Dongan Grant to Christopher Billopp did indeed encompass lands to the low water mark, this land was later confiscated by the State after Captain Billopp’s attainder for treason during the Revolutionary War. The 1779 Act of Attainder has been found to be valid by the Second Circuit numerous times, as recently as 1992. See Robins Island Pres. Fund, Inc. v. Southold Dev. Corp., 959 F.2d 409, 415 (2d Cir.1992) . While Plaintiff does not dispute the validity
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
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. recognizing forum selection clause providing that no such claim shall be commenced prosecuted or continued in any forum other than the courts of the state of new york located in the city and county of new york or in the united states district court for the southern district of new york as clear and unambiguous expression of parties selection of exclusive forum in affirming district courts dismissal of action commenced in united states district court for the district of new jersey
C. 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
D. holding that neither the new york location of the terrorist attack giving rise to the policyholders claim nor the new yorkbased claims adjustor rendered new york the locus of operative facts because new york was not the site of the contracts execution
E. holding that in adjudicating property rights affected by new yorks act of attainder of 1779 neither the supreme court nor any court of new york state has ever declared the act to be invalid
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.