With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Serv., 169 F.R.D. 28, 34 (W.D.N.Y.1996); see also Sartor v. Toussaint, 70 Fed.Appx. 11, 13 (2d Cir.2002) (summary order) (“Nor can actual notice of suit cure a failure to comply with the statutory requirements for serving process.”); McGann v. New York, 77 F.3d 672, 674-75 (2d Cir.1996) (affirming dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2)(C) even though the defendant had actually received the summons and complaint); Martin v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Mental Hygiene, 588 F.2d 371, 373 (2d Cir.1978); Hood v. Ascent Med. Corp., No. 13-cv-628, 2014 WL 5089559, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 9, 2014) (“A showing that a defendant had actual notice of the lawsuit is insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss.”); Delicata v. Bowen, 116 F.R.D. 564, 566 (S.D.N.Y.1987) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs have not shown good cause for

A: holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service
B: holding lack of prejudice to the defendant is not good cause
C: holding that a defendants actual knowledge that an action is pending or that service has been attempted is not the equivalent of service of summons and will not relieve the plaintiff of its burden or vest the court with jurisdiction
D: holding prejudice to the defendant is relevant only where plaintiff has been diligent in attempting to make service
D.