With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". on which Kalfus relies, warrants no different conclusion under New York law because the free speech claim there at issue concerned a public university’s exclusion of a former student from a “publicly owned and maintained” campus that was “open to the public.” Id. at 410-11, 477 N.Y.S.2d at 115, 465 N.E.2d 831 (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, Leonard provides no support either for Kalfus’ contention that free speech and press protections extend to private property, such as the hospital steps here at issue, or for his argument that New York law affords more expansive free speech and press protections for activities on private property than the federal Constitution. See SHAD Alliance v. Smith Haven Mall, 66 N.Y.2d 496, 505-06, 498 N.Y.S.2d 99, 105-06, 488 N.E.2d 1211 (1985) (<HOLDING>); accord Downs v. Town of Guilderland, 70

A: holding that state rights are equivalent to federal rights in this area
B: recognizing defendants state and federal constitutional rights to testify
C: holding that rights under vienna convention are not the equivalent of fundamental rights such as the right to counsel
D: holding that if there is a collision between prior adjudicated rights and reserved rights of the united states the federal question can be preserved in the state decision and brought here for review
A.