The following papers numbered 1 to 5 read on this application by petitioner for the approval of the transfer of certain structured settlement payment rights from respondent Hiram Ramirez to petitioner.Papers Numbered

Order to Show Cause - Petition - Exhibits....................................................................1-5

This is a special proceeding pursuant to the Structured Settlement Protection Act ("SSPA") (General Obligations Law art 5, title 17). The SSPA contains procedural and substantive safeguards to protect structured settlement payees, such as respondent Ramirez, from being exploited by businesses seeking to acquire the payees' structured settlement payment rights. (See, Matter of Novation Capital, LLC v Knight, 20 Misc 3d 1126[A], 2008 WL 2908124, 2008 NY Slip Op 51628[U] [Sup Ct Orange County 2008].)

The statutory scheme under the SSPA requires that a disclosure statement setting forth certain information be provided to the payee by the transferee not less than ten days prior to the date the payee signs a transfer agreement (General Obligations Law § 5-1703). The disclosure statement must be sent to the payee by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested or United States postal service priority mail (id.).No transfer of structured settlement payment rights shall be effective, furthermore, unless it has been authorized in advance by a court of competent jurisdiction upon certain express findings. (General Obligations Law § 5-1706). A copy of the disclosure statement and proof of notice of the statement as required under section 5-1703 must be included with a petition for approval of a transfer (General Obligations Law § 5-1705[d][ii]).

In this proceeding, petitioner, upon the foregoing papers, has failed to provide proof of service of the disclosure statement in the manner mandated by the SSPA (General Obligations [*2]Law § 5-1703). In addition, the disclosure statement does not contain a provision setting forth, together with the gross advance amount, "the annual discount rate, compounded monthly, used to determine such figure" (General Obligations Law § 5-1703[e]). The application, therefore, is procedurally deficient.

Petitioner's papers, moreover, are insufficient to allow the Court to make the necessary findings that "the transfer is in the best interest of the payee" and that "the transaction, including the discount rate used to determine the gross advance amount ... [is] fair and reasonable" (General Obligations Law § 5-1706[b]). Under the proposed transfer, respondent Ramirez would receive $16,500 in exchange for transferring to petitioner a payment of $45,000 due on August 18, 2019. The discounted present value of the purchased payment is $40,581.84. Petitioner has not provided any proof, by affidavit of a party with knowledge, affidavit of an expert, or otherwise, that the discount rate used to determine the gross advance amount is fair and reasonable (General Obligations Law § 5-1706[b]; see, Matter of Settlement Funding of NY, LLC [Rahman], 31 Misc 3d 1229[A], 2011 WL 1901867, 2011 NY Slip Op 50896[U] [Sup Ct Queens County 2011] [decision by the undersigned]).

The affidavit of respondent Ramirez also fails to contain any details concerning his financial situation beyond a conclusory statement as to his salary of $600 a month and his plan to use the $16,500 received from the transfer "towards an outstanding balance owed to the IRS." Also notably absent is any explanation of the disposition of a previous transfer from Ramirez to J. G. Wentworth Originations, LLC (Wentworth) that received judicial approval in December 2010 (Matter of J.G. Wentworth Originations, LLC [Ramirez], Sup Ct, Queens County, December 6, 2010, McDonald J., Index No. 26391/2010.)

The sparse record of the present proceeding does not provide any basis for a finding that the payee's transfer of a structured settlement payment right to petitioner in exchange for a net amount representing only 40.70% of the estimated current value of the settlement payment is in the payee's best interest (General Obligations Law § 5-1706[b]; see, Matter of J.G. Wentworth Originations, LLC [Lynn], 36 Misc 3d 1202[A], 2012 WL 2383351,

2012 NY Slip Op 51149[U] [Sup Ct Queens County 2012] [decision by the undersigned]); see also, Matter of 321 Henderson Receivables, L.P. v Martinez, 11 Misc 3d 892 [Sup Ct New York County 2006]). The Court notes that a similar lack of specificity was of concern to the reviewing court that denied a prior application for approval of yet another proposed transfer of payment rights from respondent Ramirez to Wentworth. (Matter of J.G. Wentworth Originations, LLC [Ramirez], Sup Ct, Queens County, December 9, 2011, Butler, J., Index No. 18797/11.)

The application is denied.

The foregoing constitutes the decision, opinion, and order of the Court. [*3]

_______________________________

J.S.C.

Dated: November 21, 2012