With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". See also St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of N. Am., supra, 32 N.J. at 22, 158 A.2d 825; Cohen v. Home Ins. Co., supra, 230 N.J.Super. at 82, 552 A.2d 654. Thus, whether or not this action is time-barred should have been determined on the basis of the applicable statute of limitations. While there does not appear to be any New Jersey case directly on point, there are several New York decisions which apply the statute of limitations to gwasi-contract and quantum meruit causes of action. See, e.g., German v. Pope John Paul, II, 211 A.D.2d 456, 621 N.Y.S.2d 311, 312 (1995) (finding that statute of limitations barred action based on breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit theories); Wint v. Fields, 177 A.D.2d 425, 576 N.Y.S.2d 266, 267 (1991) (<HOLDING>); Moors v. Hall, 143 A.D.2d 336, 532 N.Y.S.2d

A: holding supreme court had jurisdiction to find facts in accordance with its own view of the preponderance of evidence in subcontractors action against project owner seeking recovery under equitable doctrine of quantum meruit rather than recovery based on contract
B: holding that the evidence was insufficient for the statute of limitations to bar recovery of a quantum meruit cause of action
C: holding that where plaintiff did not seek to rescind a contract and only sought quantum meruit recovery after a jury had determined an enforceable contract existed plaintiff was limited to recovery under the contract
D: holding quantum meruit unavailable to remedy invalid contract
B.