Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Plaintiff contends that the presence of the barges upon his land was grounds for a state claim of private nuisance. In New York, a private nuisance is defined as (1) an interference substantial in .nature, (2) intentional in .origin, (3) unreasonable in character, (4) with a person’s property right to use and enjoy land and, (5) caused by another’s conduct in acting or failure to act. See Copart Indus., Inc. v. Consol. Edison Co., of N.Y., Inc., 41 N.Y.2d 564, 570, 394 N.Y.S.2d 169, 362 N.E.2d 968 (1977). As a matter of law, the presence of unsightly .objects, or eyesores, does not constitute substantial interference with a person’s property right (even if placed intentionally). See e.g. Dugway, Ltd. v. Fizzinoglia, 166 A.D.2d 836, 837, 563 N.Y.S.2d 175, 176-177 (3d Dep’t.1990) . Under the first and fourth prongs of this
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a section 1983 suit against an officer in his or her official capacity is simply another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent
B. holding that an action for consequential damages to property whether the action is brought in contract or in tort is an action for injury to property within the threeyear statute of limitations
C. holding plaintiff could not recover on nuisance action to recover for alleged damage to property he does not own or rent
D. holding that plaintiff could not pursue an action for private nuisance against an adjoining landowner who intentionally placed debris and an uninhabitable trailer in close proximity to main entrance to developers property in order to create an eyesore
E. holding that the medicaid statute did not create an enforceable cause of action against a private health care facility
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.