With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that "New York does not recognize [a] cause of action for 'compelled self publication,' ” the decision in Wieder rests on the holding of Weintraub v. Phillips, Nizer, Benjamin, Krim & Ballon, 172 A.D.2d 254, 255, 568 N.Y.S.2d 84 (1st Dept.1991). As I noted in Van-Go I, the facts of the Weintraub case "did not demonstrate compelled self publication, [] nor was the issue of compelled self publication actually considered.” Van-Go I, 971 F.Supp. at 102-03. Accordingly, the district court's opinion in Kenney would not affect this court's analysis of whether the New York Court of Appeals would recognize a cause of action for compelled self publication. 13 . Kulak v. City of New York, 88 F.3d 63 (2d Cir.1996) concerns an alleged "federal right” that was without any precedent. Id. at 76

A: holding out admission to practice law when not admitted to practice
B: recognizing attorneys substantial experience in the practice of law as an aggravating factor
C: holding that under the supremacy clause a state court could not enforce a prohibition on the unauthorized practice of law against an individual who was permitted to practice law under the rules of a federal court located in the states jurisdiction
D: holding that no clear line of federal law establishes that it is a substantial departure from accepted practice for a physician to fail to inform a patient of the risks of psychotropic medications
D.