With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the application letter referred to briefs that had been submitted to the Appellate Division and were attached to the letter. Id. at *4. Noting that the petitioner in Grey had mentioned only one issue his application letter whereas the petitioner presently before it had incorporated claims by reference, the Melendez court concluded that it faced a situation “quite different from Grey.” Specifically, the Melendez court found that “it is by no means obvious that [the one issue discussed in detail in the application letter] was the only point for which leave to appeal was sought,” and decided that the other claims incorporated by reference had been fairly presented to the state courts. Id. at *4-*5; see also Manning v. Artuz, No. 94-CV-3325, 1996 WL 294359, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. May 29, 1996) (<HOLDING>) Given the preferability of reviewing habeas

A: holding that when an application letter included a statement referring to the appellate division briefs the claims in the briefs were fairly presented to highest state court because the fair import of this statement was that petitioner was requesting the new york court of appeals to review the same claims that were advanced in the appellate division
B: holding that reconsideration of the correctness of property division was barred on appeal from the judgment enforcing that division
C: holding that the attorney generals decision not to provide representation to an employee is reviewable by the appellate division not by the law division where the actions against the employee are pending
D: holding that appeal from a decision of the attorney general denying legal representation was before the appellate division as of right to review the final decision of a state officer
A.