Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the “monetary value” of his retirement options and that as a result he selected Disability Retirement, rendering him ineligible to receive VSF benefits. (See Letter to Peter Alan Holland, dated Dec. 21, 2006, attached to Compl.) Falardo now claims that the NYPD’s alleged failure to adequately inform him of his retirement options co .Ed.2d 47 (1998); Castellano v. Board of Tr. of Police Officers’ Variable Supplements Fund, 937 F.2d 752 (2d Cir.1991) (“Castellano I”) (upholding the Scheme against challenge under Equal Protection, Due Process, and Contract Clauses of the United States Constitution and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims); Castellano v. City of New York, 251 A.D.2d 194, 674 N.Y.S.2d 364, 365 (App. Div. 1st Dep’t 1998) (“Cas-tellano III ”) , appeal denied, 92 N.Y.2d 817, 684 N.Y.S.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that claims to the vsf benefits under various theories were barred by the res judicata effect of the state court judgment in castellano iii
B. holding that neglect was not excusable where the defendants did not do all that they were required to do after they received the summons and complaint in that they did not contact a lawyer or make any other arrangements with respect to their defense
C. holding that plaintiffs could not relitigate their claim that they were entitled to vsf benefits and that while plaintiffs could have raised additional claims in one or more of the foregoing actions they opted not to do so and they are barred by res judicata from doing so now
D. holding that the plaintiffs were not entitled to present testimony that they were induced to enter an automobile lease by promises that they could disregard terms of the lease
E. holding that any claim that was raised or could have been raised on direct appeal is barred from review on post conviction under the doctrine of res judicata
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.