Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
which led the DOE to believe that “money may be due back to the DOE.” The e-mail further stated that, “[u]ntil the DOE is confident that no money is owed to it for prior false invoices from [RESG], the account will remain frozen and money withheld in order to protect the City’s interests and tax payer dollars.” Before the District Court, and now on appeal, UCF has argued that the objection in the February 3 e-mail was insufficiently specific inasmuch as it did not directly address each of the 3,913 invoices in the allegedly stated account. We are aware of no authority under New York law that requires such extreme specificity. On the contrary, numerous New des the plaintiffs statement of an account. See Navimex S.A. De C.V. v. S/S “Northern Ice”, 617 F.Supp. 103, 106 (S.D.N.Y.1984) . Upon a thorough review of the record, and in
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a statement that the affiant is president of the company asserting a claim on an account is sufficient to affirmatively show how the affiant has personal knowledge of the affidavit statements regarding the account
B. holding that a supplementary statement of account dated february 1978 did not constitute an account stated because there was an underlying dispute between the parties as evidenced by defendants objection in january 1978 to plaintiffs august 1977 statement of account thereby precluding a finding of consent by the defendants to the february 1978 statement
C. holding that improper statement was rendered harmless because the district court sustained the defendants objection  and admonished the jury to disregard the statement
D. holding that it was error for the court to rule that the statement of mortgage debt was incorrect prior to submission of the auditors statement of account
E. holding that language in a merrill lynch customer account agreement that the plaintiff signed upon opening the first account  providing for arbitration of any controversy  arising out of its business  applied to the disputed second account even though the plaintiff did not sign a separate customer account agreement for the second account
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.