With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". submitting monthly reports and fees to the plaintiff in New York, making daily communications to the plaintiffs New York employees, and locating their professional association and financing organization in New York. Id. at 29-31. Rejecting the argument that the contemplated breach of contract claim would “arise” only from (i) the licensing agreements, which were not formed in New York, or (ii) the franchisor-plaintiffs' potential- breach of those agreements, which would not occur in New York, the court held that because the franchisees’ business activities in New York all occurred pursuant to the licensing agreements, the case arose out of those business activities for jurisdictional purposes. Id. at 31-32; see also CutCo Indus., Inc. v. Naughton, 806 F.2d 361, 367 (2d Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>); Alta Ana-lytics, Inc. v. Muuss, 75 F.Supp.2d

A: holding immaterial breach did not constitute breach of contract
B: holding breach of contract claim not preempted as a straightforward breach of contract action as it alleged violation of specific covenant
C: holding that business visits and purchases within a forum even if occurring at regular intervals are not enough to support general jurisdiction over a defendant
D: holding business visits to the forum unrelated to the alleged breach of contract not jurisdictionally insignificant
D.