Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
True, the Ohio General Assembly has tasked the county offices with implementing the NVRA; but, as previously explained, the General Assembly also tasked the Director with the power to enforce any county transgressions of federal law. This is not an either-or proposition. The fact that some states, like Ohio, delegate the administration of public assistance programs to counties or municipalities should not mean that those states are free of all statutory obligations. See New York, 255 F.Supp.2d at 79 (“It would be plainly unreasonable to permit a mandatorily designated State agency to shed its NVRA responsibilities because it has chosen to delegate the rendering of its services to local municipal agencies.”); see also Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, 331 F.3d 261, 286 (2d Cir.2003) . The federal food stamp program is
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that new york could not avoid its obligations under the rehabilitation act by delegating authority to localities to deliver federally funded services
B. holding that a financial guaranty payable in new york is a contract to perform services in new york subjecting foreign guarantor to jurisdiction under  302a1
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 the plaintiff in an eviction proceeding by a private landlord in federally funded section 8 housing could assert claims for violations of the rehabilitation act and fha as affirmative defenses with regard to nopet policy
E. holding that post2001 new york was clearly subject to suit under section 504 of the rehabilitation act
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.