Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
this standard is "much weaker” than that mandated by the patent law under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Softel, Inc., 118 F.3d at 969. In Nadel v. Play-By-Play Toys & Novelties, Inc., 208 F.3d 368, 380, 54 USPQ2d 1810 (2d Cir.2000), the Second Circuit held: New York law in submission-of-ideas case is governed by the following principles: Contract-based claims require only a showing that the disclosed idea was novel to the buyer in order to furnish consideration.... By contrast, misappropriation claims require that the idea at issue be original and novel in absolute terms. Id. at 380, 208 F.3d 368, 54 USPQ2d at 1817. While Nadel was an idea-submitter case, the New York courts have required an identical showing of "novelty” to support a trade secret claim. See Softel, Inc., 118 F.3d at 969 n. 11
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that new york law applies to this matter
B. holding that new york law requires the same showing of novelty in trade secret claim as in submission of ideas claim and quoting murray v natl broadcasting co inc 844 f2d 988 994 2d cir1988
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 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
E. holding that new york law requires this same showing of novelty in a trade secret claim as in submissionofidea cases
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.