With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". clients were at “the very core and ... the only purpose of [plaintiff’s] association with [the law firm],” such that the employee and employer duties were so "closely linked as to be incapable of separation.” Wieder v. Skala, 80 N.Y.2d 628, 635, 593 N.Y.S.2d 752, 609 N.E.2d 105 (1992). Even this case seems limited to its facts, as the Court of Appeals has refused to extend Wieder to other claims based on duties dictated by other professional codes or statute. See, e.g., Horn v. New York Times, 100 N.Y.2d 85, 97, 760 N.Y.S.2d 378, 790 N.E.2d 753 (2003) (finding that a physician's professional obligation to follow the Code of Medical Ethics did not impose an obligation on her employer to terminate her only for just cause); Smith v. AVSC Int’l, Inc., 148 F.Supp.2d 302, 315 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (<HOLDING>). 6 . Levin states that Slue’s employment with

A: holding that sixyear contract statute of limitations did not apply reasoning that an action to recover damages for personal injuries based on breach of warranty is only nominally based on contract
B: holding breach of contract claim not preempted as a straightforward breach of contract action as it alleged violation of specific covenant
C: recognizing that breach of contract cause of action accrues at time of the breach
D: holding that violation of accountants duties mandated by statute did not create a cause of action based on breach of implied contract for employee
D.