With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". on ... later policies.” Simonds v. Simonds, 45 N.Y.2d 233, 240, 408 N.Y.S.2d 359, 380 N.E.2d 189 (1978). Under New York law, that obligation is “enforceable in equity despite [the Decedent’s] failure to comply with the terms of the separation agreement” and, when the Decedent died, Plaintiffs acquired “not only a right at law to sue his estate for breach of contract, a right now worthless, but also an equitable right” in the proceeds of the Aetna'policy. Id.; see also Rogers v. Rogers, 63 N.Y.2d 582, 586-87, 483 N.Y.S.2d 976, 473 N.E.2d 226 (1984) (similar). As Plaintiffs provided consideration in exchange for that equitable right, their rights are superior to the rights of Zakharenko,- a gratuitous beneficiary. See Simonds, 45 N.Y.2d at 239, 408 N.Y.S.2d 359, 380 N.E.2d 189 (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs “remedy is imposition of a

A: holding that no consideration existed for part of the settlement
B: holding that offer of atwill employment is valid consideration to support an arbitration agreement
C: holding that under oregon law an agreement must be supported by consideration to be legally enforceable
D: holding that an interest obtained through an agreement supported by consideration is superior to that of a named beneficiary who has given no consideration
D.