The Court of Appeal, affirming a ruling by the Appellate Division, held:
'The doctrine of waiver does not preclude consideration of [Person B's] challenge here to the enforceability of the loan on the ground that it was funded by illegal gambling proceeds. Nevertheless, that defense was properly rejected on the merits. Given our strong public policy favoring freedom of contract, agreements are generally enforceable by their terms (159 MP Corp. v Redbridge Bedford, LLC, 33 NY3d 353, 359-361 ). There is an affirmed finding, supported by the record, that the parties entered into a bona fide loan agreement and the facts do not support voiding the agreement on public policy grounds.
"Neither the terms of the agreement nor [Person A's] performance — i.e., loaning money to a friend — was intrinsically corrupt or illegal. Although the loan was funded by the parties' illegal gambling operation (for which both were criminally prosecuted), the record does not support a characterization of their conduct as "malum in se, or evil in itself" (Lloyd Capital Corp. v Pat Henchar, Inc., 80 NY2d 124, 128 ) and the source of funds used for a loan is not typically a factor in determining its validity.
The decision is posted on the Internet at: