With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". filed in response to defendant’s initial motion, dispute defendant’s contention that a final agreement was reached; however, a plenary hearing to resolve that dispute was never scheduled. The first motion judge’s order fails to resolve that dispute. Implicit in the order is the judge’s apparent conclusion that defendant’s contentions were true. We infer this because temporary custody was awarded to defendant pending completion of evaluations. The passage of time, plaintiffs failure to request a Holder hearing, and her apparent acquiescence to the visitation schedule established by agreement and given judicial sanction by paragraph 4 of the March 21,1994, order lends further support to our inference. Cf Horswell v. Horswell, 297 N.J.Super. 94, 104, 687 A.2d 797 (App.Div.1997) (<HOLDING>). On March 21,1994, the first motion judge

A: holding that sophistication of investor is relevant factor in determining when plaintiff placed on inquiry notice
B: holding that the passage of time was a relevant factor when determining custody issues
C: holding that the key factor in determining the applicability of section 1981 to an employee who spends time abroad is the relevant work station
D: holding that the relevant time is the time of the employment decision
B.