With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to the substantial relationship test set forth by the Second Circuit in Allegaert. Proskauer did switch sides in this case. Proskauer previously represented Interli-ant on at least two acquisitions and now Proskauer represents directors and officers adverse to Interliant’s successor on claims that directly involve those two transactions. Proskauer did not have the “continuous and unbroken legal relationship with their primary clients” that was integral to the Second Circuit’s decision in Allegaert. In fact, defendants have not asserted that Proskauer previously represented any of the officers and directors. Because the current case does not fall within the Allegaert exception, the substantial relationship test applies. IV. Whether there was cs., Inc., 733 F.2d 253, 255 (2d Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). So, “[t]he more wide-ranging the allegations

A: holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel
B: holding that counsel could be disqualified from opposing plaintiffs claims of unfair competition and misappropriation of trade secrets where counsel had represented plaintiff as general counsel during the relevant time period
C: holding that the 180day statutory limit in the iad is tolled starting from the time that a defendant is not represented by counsel until new counsel is either appointed or retained when the defendant has not waived his right to counsel because during this period a defendant is unable to stand trial in accordance with the iad citation omitted
D: recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel
B.