With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in conduct that would result in offensive bodily contact. It is undisputed in this case that there was actual force used in restraining and arresting Mr. Cunningham. The evidence presented at the trial demonstrated that the bodily contact was offensive in nature. Therefore, plaintiff has established the first two prongs of the test for a battery — namely, he has proved that there was bodily contact that was offensive in nature. Plaintiff must also prove that the offensive contact was “made with intent.” While the plaintiff must prove intentional contact, he “is not required to prove an intention to cause the specific injuries resulting from the contact.” Masters v. Becker, 22 A.D.2d 118, 120, 254 N.Y.S.2d 633, 635 (2d Dep’t 1964); see also Lambertson v. United States, 528 F.2d at 441 (<HOLDING>). The contact in this case was unquestionably

A: holding that federal employee committed a battery when he jumped on plaintiffs back and began to ride plaintiff piggyback resulting in plaintiff falling and being injured even though federal employee intended no harm
B: recognizing that the survivor of a deceased federal employee has no standing to file an eeo complaint on behalf of that former employee but personal representative of deceased employee can be substituted as plaintiff if deceased employee initiated complaint prior to death
C: holding that although incorrect drug report was detrimental to employee employee had no claim against hospital because the report was not intended to primarily or directly benefit the employee
D: holding that a plaintiff must comply with the notice of claim requirements in order to maintain an action against a government employee even if the plaintiff claims that the employee acted with fraud or malice
A.