Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
page 21C, Defendant Harvey argues in his Fifth Supplement at pp. 16-17 that the absence of reference in Copus’ affidavit to evidence obtained in controlled trash collections as part of the state investigation vitiated the showing of necessity under § 2518(3)(c) and rendered the affidavit materially false. This argument is without merit. Even with this evidence, the state investigators had told the FBI agents that the state lacked sufficient evidence to arrest Harvey. 9 . Both parties agree that the requirements of the federal Act apply to determine whether authorization for disclosure of the contents of the state wiretap was necessary and sufficient. There has been some disagreement on this point in the reported decisions. Compare United States v. Tortorello, supra, 480 F.2d at 782  with United States v. Marion, supra, 535 F.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. 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
B. holding the new york state wiretap statute controlling on this issue
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 applies to this matter
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.