With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". association with [the law firm],” such that the employee and employer duties were so “closely linked as to be incapable of separation.” Id. at 635, 593 N.Y.S.2d 752, 609 N.E.2d 105. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals still refused to recognize the tort of wrongful discharge. Id. at 638-39, 593 N.Y.S.2d 752, 609 N.E.2d 105. The New York courts have declined to expand the exception under Wieder based on duties dictated by other professional codes or statute. See, e.g., Horn v. New York Times, 100 N.Y.2d 85, 97, 760 N.Y.S.2d 378, 790 N.E.2d 753 (2003) (finding that a physician’s professional obligation to follow the Code of Medical Ethics did not impose an obligation on her employer to terminate her only for just cause); Smith v. AVSC Int’l, Inc., 148 F.Supp.2d 302, 315 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, plaintiffs status as a licensed

A: holding that violation of accountants duties mandated by statute did not create a cause of action based on breach of implied contract for employee
B: holding that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach
C: holding that sixyear contract statute of limitations did not apply reasoning that an action to recover damages for personal injuries based on breach of warranty is only nominally based on contract
D: recognizing that breach of contract cause of action accrues at time of the breach
A.