Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the court rejected a trustee’s argument that a post-petition filing of a mechanic’s hen in accordance with New York Lien Law constituted a preferential transfer: Section 547(c)(6) provides ... that a trustee may not avoid the fixing of a statutory hen that is not avoidable under section 545. Mechanics’ hens duly filed pursuant to state law are not avoidable under section 545. Consequently, this court disagrees with the trustee’s position. Id. at 60. Although the hen in that case received the benefit of New York’s “relation-back” provision, the court’s preference decision did not rely on that fact. The court looked instead to whether the henor had filed his notice of hen within the statutory time period. See also In re Wisner, 77 B.R. 395, 397-98 (Bankr.N.D.N.Y.1987) . In In re APC Construction, Inc., 132 B.R. 690
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that new york law applies to this matter
B. 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
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 that mechanics hen arising under new york lien law is statutory hen as opposed to judicial hen
E. 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
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.