With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". unable to prevail on an affirmative defense that the plaintiffs waived any of the breaches.”) In sum, the Court holds that NSA has established the requisite reliance for a claim of breach of express warranty by demonstrating the existence of the express warranties in the SPA, and finds that even if SeraNova had raised its waiver argu ment in a timely fashion — which it did not — the argument would have failed. B. Damages SeraNova belatedly argues that NSA must prove it suffered actual damages as a result of SeraNova’s alleged breach, and that NSA has failed to show such damages. SeraNova raised this argument for the first time in its surreply. In support of this argument, SeraNova relies on LNC Investments, Inc. v. First Fidelity Bank, N.A. New Jersey, 173 F.3d 454, 465 (2nd Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Cramer v. Spada, 203 A.D.2d 739, 610

A: holding that failure to demonstrate a causal connection is fatal to a  1983  cause of action
B: holding that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach
C: holding under new york law in fact the failure to prove damages is  fatal to a plaintiffs breach of contract cause of action 
D: recognizing that breach of contract cause of action accrues at time of the breach
C.