With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". complaint are not controlling, and only uncontroverted factual allegations are accepted as true ....” Id. (internal citations omitted). Both parties are permitted to use affidavits and other pleading materials to support and oppose the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir.2000) (citation omitted). “Furthermore, ‘jurisdiction must be shown affirmatively, and that showing is not made by drawing from the pleadings inferences favorable to the party asserting it.’ ” Gunst v. Seaga, No. 05 Civ. 2626, 2007 WL 1032265, *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2007) (quoting Shipping Fin. Servs. Corp. v. Drakos, 140 F.3d 129, 131 (2d Cir.1998)); see also State Empls. Bargaining Agent Coal. v. Rowland, 494 F.3d 71, 77 n. 4 (2d Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Since ripeness is a jurisdictional

A: holding that in ruling on a rule 12b1 motion the court may consider exhibits outside the pleadings to resolve factual disputes regarding jurisdiction
B: holding that the court can look beyond the face of the pleadings in order to find predicate jurisdictional facts when deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
C: holding that in a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction a court may resolve disputed factual issues by reference to evidence outside the pleadings including affidavits
D: holding that a court may review any evidence such as affidavits and testimony to resolve factual disputes concerning the existence of jurisdiction
C.