With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (1995)). See also In re Manville Forest Products Corp., 209 F.3d 125 (2d Cir.2000); In re Texaco, Inc. 218 B.R. 1 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1998). 29 . See Ely-Cruikshank Co., Inc. v. Bank of Montreal, 81 N.Y.2d 399, 402, 599 N.Y.S.2d 501, 615 N.E.2d 985 (N.Y.1993) (“Ely-Cruikshank ") (citations omitted); see also T & N PLC v. Fred S. James & Co. of New York, Inc., 29 F.3d 57, 59-60 (2d Cir.1994). 30 . See page 15 above. 31 . Complaint ¶¶ 16-18. 32 . Highland's complaint seems to suggest both. Complaint ¶ 16 refers to the Memorandum as the offer, but Complaint ¶ 18 refers to Lyondell as having ''accepted” Highland’s offer in its Commitment Letter. However, any inconsistency here is irrelevant. 33 . Complaint ¶¶ 34, 35. 34 . See Ely-Cruikshank, 81 N.Y.2d at 402, 599 N.Y.S.2d 501, 615 N.E.2d 985 (<HOLDING>). 35 . 87 N.Y.2d 384, 639 N.Y.S.2d 977, 663

A: recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract
B: holding immaterial breach did not constitute breach of contract
C: holding that trial court erred by dismissing breach of contract claim because appellee made promises to perform specific acts in contract the breach of which would give rise to a breach of contract action
D: holding that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach
D.