Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
for tortious interference of contract, it is axiomatic that there must be a breach of contract by the other party.” Jack L. Inselman & Co. v. FNB Financial Co., 41 N.Y.2d 1078, 396 N.Y.S.2d 347, 349, 364 N.E.2d 1119, 1120 (1977). Inselman was cited by the Court of Appeals with approval and its holding affirmed as late as March 26, 1996. NBT Bancorp Inc. et al. v. Fleet/Norstar Financial Group, Inc., 87 N.Y.2d 614, 620-21, 641 N.Y.S.2d 581, 584-85, n. 1, 664 N.E.2d 492 (N.Y.1996) (distinguishing between tortious interference with contract and tortious interference with prospective contractual relations and holding that the former requires that there be a breach of the contract). See also Kronos, Inc. v. AVX Corp., 81 N.Y.2d 90, 94, 595 N.Y.S.2d 931, 934, 612 N.E.2d 289, 292 (N.Y.1993) . The Second Circuit has concurred in this
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the statute of limitations for a claim of tortious interference with contractual relations begins to run when the contract in question has been breached
B. recognizing the tort of wrongful interference with anothers business relations
C. holding that there must be a tort distinguishable from or independent of the breach of contract in order for a party to bring a valid claim in tort based on a breach in a contractual relationship
D. holding that to sustain a claim under the tort of interference with contractual relations the plaintiff must inter alia show that the defendant intentionally induced the third party to breach or render performance impossible
E. recognizing the tort of interference with prospective contractual relations as a subspecies of the broader tort of interference with prospective economic advantage
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.