Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and battery occurs “when a person is placed in imminent apprehension of harmful or offensive bodily contact and there is an actual use of force.” Cohen v. Davis, 926 F.Supp. 399, 402 (S.D.N.Y.1996) (citing 6 N.Y. Jur.2d § 1). Plaintiff has established that he was in “imminent apprehension” that the officers would eng entional. However, where there has been a lawful arrest, intentional contact with the arrested person does not constitute assault and battery, provided such force is reasonable. See, e.g., Lorensen v. State, 249 A.D.2d 762, 671 N.Y.S.2d 790 (3d Dep’t 1998) (upholding a finding that force used during a lawful arrest was “no more than necessary” in light of the circumstances); Wyllie v. District Atty., of County of Kings, 2 A.D.3d 714, 770 N.Y.S.2d 110 (2d Dep’t 1996) . Conversely, when “an arrest is determined to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding alvarez and garza were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on their affirmative defense of limitations when they did not negate the discovery rule in their summary judgment motions
B. recognizing the cause of action
C. holding that whether pleadings fail to state a cause of action may not be resolved by summary judgment
D. holding that state defendants demonstrated their entitlement to summary judgment on the second assault and battery cause of action by demonstrating the reasonableness of their conduct in arresting and transporting the plaintiff
E. recognizing that when a cause of action is reduced to a judgment the cause of action is merged into the judgment and thereafter only an action on the judgment exists
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.