With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: holding that an addition to an abated property is not exempt
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 a commodities swap agreement is not an illegal contract to gamble  and is exempt from the strictures of   5401
D: holding that an arbitration agreement is separable from the underlying agreement
C.