Supreme Court, Rensselaer County

Decided on May 27, 2026

Index No. EF2026-282167

Noel Mendez, J.

[*1]

In this proceeding pursuant to the Structured Settlement Protection Act, codified under [*2]Article 5, Title 17 of the General Obligations Law ("GOL"), Petitioner J.G. Wentworth Originations, LLC ("Petitioner") seeks an order from this Court transferring the right to certain future structured settlement payments currently held by Respondent G.R. ("GR") from GR to Petitioner in accordance with GOL § 5-1701 et seq. and the federal Structured Settlement Factoring Transactions act, codified at 26 USC § 5891. GR appears in this proceeding as an interested party, but the remaining respondents have not joined the proceeding. Based upon the parties' submissions, and for the reasons that follow, the Court denies and dismisses the Petition.

I. Background and Procedural History

GR, a 26-year-old with no minor dependents, makes $145,000 a year as a steelworker. GR currently receives certain payments pursuant to a structured settlement agreement and seeks to transfer the rights to future payments to Petitioner. GR seeks to use the proposed one-time transfer payment from Petitioner to purchase a multi-family rental property for approximately $350,000-$370,000. Petitioner proposes the transfer of an aggregate sum of $1,445,031.84 in exchange for a proposed lump sum payment of $404,000.00 to GR, equating to approximately 28% of the aggregate sum. This is now the fourth time GR attempts to sell the rights to his future annuity payments per the structured settlement to a company that purchases them, with the previous three petitions having been denied on the basis that the proposed exchange would be violative of the Structured Settlement Protection Act ("SSPA"). Having considered the proof submitted, and having heard oral argument thereon, the Court renders the following decision.

II. Analysis

SSPAs have been enacted in 49 states, including New York, to address exploitative practices by companies similar to Petitioner who purchase the rights to future structured settlement payments in exchange for an immediate lump sum to the payee that is significantly less than the face value of the aggregate settlement proceeds (see Cordero v Transamerica Annuity Serv. Corp., 39 NY3d 399, 404 [2023] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Such assignments are heavily scrutinized in New York because they are often inequitable (see Singer Asset Fin. Co., LLC v Scott, 38 AD3d 1120, 1120 n 1 [3d Dept 2007]; Pinnacle Capital, LLC v O'Bleanis, 214 AD3d 913, 915 [2d Dept 2023] [discussing generally the purpose of the SSPA, as reflected by the bill's legislative materials, as establishing procedural safeguards for those who sell settlements that were awarded to them due to litigation because the people who receive such settlements have been unfairly taken advantage of by the businesses that purchase their settlements]). Courts in this State have thus observed:

"[I]t has been the intent of the Legislature (as evidenced by the reasons for enacting the SSPA, noted above) to place the court in a position of in loco parentis to these payees, so as to ensure that the transactions are, inter alia, fair and reasonable, [the] reason being that the Legislature was dissatisfied with transfer market rates, requiring judicial intervention to the extent that courts were not 'to be mere rubber stamps'"

(Matter of J.G. Wentworth Originations, LLC, 33 Misc 3d 1234(A), *4 [Sup Ct, Queens County 2011] [citation omitted]).

The SSPA provides, in pertinent part:

"No direct or indirect transfer of structured settlement payment rights shall be effective and no structured settlement obligor or annuity issuer shall be required to make any payment directly or indirectly to any transferee of structured settlement payment rights unless the transfer has been authorized in advance in a final order of a court of competent jurisdiction based upon express findings by such court that:

(a) the transfer complies with the requirements of this title;

(b) the transfer is in the best interest of the payee, taking into account the welfare and support of the payee's dependants [sic]; and whether the transaction, including the discount rate used to determine the gross advance amount and the fees and expenses used to determine the net advance amount, are fair and reasonable. Provided the court makes the findings as outlined in this subdivision, there is no requirement for the court to find that an applicant is suffering from a hardship to approve the transfer of structured settlement payments under this subdivision;

(c) the payee has been advised in writing by the transferee to seek independent professional advice regarding the transfer and has either received such advice or knowingly waived such advice in writing;

(d) the transfer does not contravene any applicable statute or the order of any court or other government authority; and

(e) is written in plain language and in compliance with section 5-702 of this article"

(General Obligations Law § 5-1706; see also Matter of Settlement Funding of NY, 195 Misc 2d 721, 722-723 [Sup Ct, Rensselaer County 2003]).

Whether a proposed transfer is in a payee's best interest depends upon the facts of the case (see Matter of Sempra Fin., LLC v Wilton Re Annuity Serv. Corp., 2019 NY Slip Op 30470[U], *4-5 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2019]), and courts have considered, inter alia, the payee's age, mental and physical capacity, maturity level, ability to show sufficient income independent of the payments sought for transfer, stated purpose for the transfer, and ability to appreciate the financial terms and consequences of the proposed transfer based on independent legal and financial advice (see Ashlee Calendar, LLC v B.M., 72 Misc 3d 1209[A], 9 [Sup Ct, St. Lawrence County 2021]). The payee's willingness to transfer the settlement has no bearing on the court's determination (see Matter of Sempra Fin., 2019 NY Slip Op 30470[U], at *2 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).

Here, Petitioner seeks to have transferred to them monthly payments of $2,253.12 beginning April 5, 2026, through and including January 5, 2058, increasing 3 percent every February 5th. Petitioner also seeks to have transferred one lump sum payment of $15,000.00 due February 5, 2030, and one lump sum payment of $15,000.00 due February 5, 2035. In total, Petitioner proposes the transfer of an aggregate sum of $1,445,031.84 in exchange for a lump sum payment to GR of $404,000.00, equating to approximately 28% of the aggregate sum. The discounted present value of the structured settlement payments, calculated using a federal interest rate of 4.60 percent, is $689,705.85.

The Court finds the proposed transfer is not fair and reasonable given that GR would only receive 28% of the aggregate sum (see Matter of Sempra Fin., 2019 NY Slip Op 30470[U], at *5-6; Stone St. Originations, LLC v Peterson, 69 Misc 3d 1206[A], *2 [Sup Ct, Queens County 2020]; Matter of Settlement Capital Corp. [Ballos], 1 Misc 3d 446, 462 [Sup Ct, Queens [*3]County 2003]).

The Court additionally finds the proposed transfer is not in GR's best interest, to the extent that their own financial advisor does not support using the proposed transfer to purchase multi-family real estate. Although GR earns significantly more money now than in his previous applications, the proposed transfer may compromise GR's long-term financial security when compared to lifetime monthly and occasional lump sum payments they are slated to receive due to the structured settlement (see Matter of Sempra Fin., 2019 NY Slip Op 30470[U], at *5-6).

III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate the transaction is fair and reasonable or that it is in GR's best interest.

Petitioner is additionally reminded that several documents filed on the New York State Court Electronic Filing system ("NYSCEF") state GR's full or last name despite Petitioner's promise to the Court that the documents would be revised and resubmitted to omit GR's name.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that the Petition is DENIED and DISMISSED, without prejudice; and it is further

ORDERED and ADJUDGED, that a copy of this Decision and Order, and all prior Decisions and Orders in connection with GR, shall be annexed to any future petitions brought by or on behalf of GR in this or any other County.

This shall constitute the Decision and Order of this Court. The Court has uploaded this original Decision and Order to the case record in this matter as maintained on NYSCEF, whereupon it is to be filed and entered by the County Clerk's Office. Counsel is not relieved from the applicable provisions contained in CPLR 2220 and Section 202.5-b (h) (2) of the Uniform Rules of Supreme and County Courts, insofar as they relate to service and notice of entry, whether by mail or electronic means.

Dated: May 27, 2026

Troy, New York

Hon. Noel Mendez

Acting Justice of the Supreme Court

Papers Considered:

NYSCEF Docs. Nos. 1-24