With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". over the state law claims. Town of West Hartford v. Operation Rescue, 915 F.2d 92, 104 (2d Cir.1990). (“It is well settled that if the federal claims are dismissed before trial ... the state claims should be dismissed as well.”) Nevertheless, in the interest of judicial economy, we will address the merits of plaintiffs state law claims. Our finding that there was probable cause to arrest plaintiff compels us to dismiss plaintiffs state law claims of false arrest and imprisonment and malicious prosecution. See Kinzer v. Jackson, 316 F.3d 139, 143 (2d Cir.2003) (“to state a claim under New York law for the tort of malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must show ... that there was no probable cause for the proceeding ... ”); Moscoso v. City of New York, 92 F.Supp.2d 310, 312 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (<HOLDING>). Turning to the negligence claim, plaintiff

A: holding that there is no  1983 cause of action for false arrest unless the arresting officer lacked probable cause
B: holding that because there was probable cause for arresting plaintiff plaintiffs claims whether under section 1983 or new york state law that were predicated on false arrest or false imprisonment compelled dismissal
C: holding that false arrest and false imprisonment claim were not duplicative
D: holding that claims for false arrest and imprisonment under  1983 accrue at the time of the arrest
B.