With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (1976); Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 567, 92 S.Ct. 2219, 33 L.Ed.2d 131 (1972) 111, 465 N.E.2d 881 1228, 1230, 897 N.Y.S.2d 264, 266-67 (3d Dep’t 2010). In sum, because the order expelling Kalfus from the hospital’s private property did not violate either the Constitution or New York law, the district court correctly concluded that Kalfus’s violation of the hospital’s order provided probable cause to support his arrest for trespass and, thus, properly dismissed the false arrest claim. 2. Malicious Prosecution Because probable cause existed to arrest Kalfus for trespass, his malicious prosecution claim based on defendant Sergeant Steven Rodriguez’s swearing out a criminal complaint for that offense also fails. See Manganiello v. City of N.Y., 612 F.3d 149, 161-62 (2d Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). In addition, Kalfus does not point to any

A: recognizing tennessee law requires the absence of probable cause to maintain a malicious prosecution claim
B: holding that involuntary transport to a police station for questioning is sufficiently like arrest to invoke the traditional rule that arrests may constitutionally be made only on probable cause internal quotation marks and brackets omitted
C: recognizing probable cause as complete defense to a claim of malicious prosecution in new york internal quotation marks and brackets omitted
D: holding that the electronic submission of information across state lines qualifies as in or affecting interstate commerce internal quotation marks and brackets omitted
C.