With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 444. Statements such as “ ‘we’re partners’ ” and “ ‘we look forward to growing together,’ ” when made by experienced negotiators in the course of a collective bargaining agreement negotiation, are not clear and unambiguous promises to renew the subject agreement. Marine Transp. Lines, Inc. v. Int’l Org. of Masters, Mates, & Pilots, 636 F.Supp. 384, 391 (S.D.N.Y.1986) (Weinfeld, J.); see also Media Sport & Arts s.r.l. v. Kinney Shoe Corp., No. 95 Civ. 3901, 1997 WL 473968, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. Aug.20,1997) (Leisure, J.) (finding defendant’s statements that “ ‘FIBA may proceed to act on the enclosed offer without limitation’ ” and “ ‘FL and FIBA are going to make a great team’ ” were not clear and unambiguous promises); Cohen v. Lehman Brothers Bank, 273 F.Supp.2d 524, 529-30 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (<HOLDING>). On the other hand, a situation where

A: holding that only issues not known at the time of the original trial or issues not available on direct appeal may be properly raised through postconviction proceedings
B: holding that issues not raised before the trial court cannot be raised on appeal
C: holding defendants statement that  she would work through the issues raised by plaintiffs about the deal prior to execution of a loan mortgage agreement could not be construed as a clear and unambiguous promise citing media sport  arts srl 1997 wl 473968 at 13
D: holding that where it was clear that the court of appeals had limited the issues on resentencing to the one issue raised in the defendants first appeal the district court did not err in declining to consider other issues raised by the defendant on remand
C.