Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): the LOC will not be invalidated. Morgan’s motion for summary judgment on this claim is granted, and KLI’s illegality claim is dismissed. D. Plaintiffs’ Gambling Claim Plaintiffs’ sixth cause of action alleges that the transactions at issue were “bets” in violation of the New York Anti-Gambling Statute. See N.Y. G.O.L. § 5-401. Although I have characterized KLI’s swap agreements as “bets” and “speculations” on currency fluctuations, the transactions were in the form of forward contracts, swaps and derivatives. Derivatives transactions, forward contracts and swap agreements in currencies and commodities are not considered illegal gambles, and do not violate New York’s gambling statute. See General Elec. Co. v. Metals Res. Group, 293 A.D.2d 417, 741 N.Y.S.2d 218, 219 (1st Dep’t 2002) (<HOLDING>). As such, summary judgment is granted to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a commodities swap agreement is not an illegal contract to gamble  and is exempt from the strictures of   5401 (B) holding if the plea agreement was not conditioned on the sentencing guidelines an appellant is not entitled to relief because his sentence is not illegal (C) holding that an arbitration agreement is separable from the underlying agreement (D) holding that an addition to an abated property is not exempt (E) holding that no action may be maintained on an illegal agreement
Output (English): holding if the plea agreement was not conditioned on the sentencing guidelines an appellant is not entitled to relief because his sentence is not illegal