With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Denny’s employees ignored her requests that they do so. Gray adduced testimonial evidence that the events at issue occurred during the so called “bar rush” that followed the closing of local bars, a time when customers coming to Denny’s were frequently loud and profane. See Pl.’s Rule 56.1 Statement ¶ 57(c), (e). Gray further adduced evidence that Denny’s internal policies recognized profane language as “work place violence.” She also submitted police reports of work place violence involving actual physical assaults occurring in the year preceding her assault. Denny’s submits that such records cannot defeat summary judgment because they are inadmissible hearsay. The argument fails only one, instance of customer assault. See Kazanoff v. United States, 945 F.2d 32, 39 (2d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); Davis v. City of New York, 183 A.D.2d 683,

A: holding evidence of one possible burglary before incident at issue insufficient to demonstrate prior criminal activity
B: holding that iowa burglary is not categorical burglary as the elements of iowa burglary law are broader than those of generic burglary
C: holding that a threeyear gap was insufficient to demonstrate staleness where the criminal activity was ongoing
D: holding that possession of burglary tools is an offense separate from burglary
A.