With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". see also Hotel Emps. & Rest. Emps. Union v. City of N.Y. Dep’t of Parks & Recreation, 311 F.3d 534, 543-44 (2d Cir.2002). Even if the hospital permitted members of the public to use the steps, it was not unlawful for the hospital to expel Kalfus for failure to comply with hospital policy requiring members of the media to obtain prior authorization before entering the premises. See Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. at 569, 92 S.Ct. 2219 (stating that private property does not “lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes”). Nor was the hospital’s order transformed into state action merely because the special patrolmen subsequently acted under color of state law when they arrested Kalfus. Cf. id. at 554, 556, 570, 92 S.Ct. 2219 (<HOLDING>). People v. Leonard, 62 N.Y.2d 404, 477

A: recognizing private right of action
B: holding that the state is obligated to pay property owners when it regulates private property under its police power in such a manner that the regulation effectively deprives the owner of the economically viable use of that property
C: holding no state action in private property owners prohibition on handbill distribution despite involvement of mall security officers invested with police authority in communicating prohibition
D: holding that no private right of action exists
C.