Petitioner has applied, pursuant to the Structured Settlement Protection Act (the “Act”), General Obligations Law (“GOL”) §5-1701 et seq., for approval of the transfer of the rights to certain structured settlement payments due and owing to Steve Dotzler, under a structured settlement agreement (the “Agreement”). The pending application marks the tenth (10th) time Mr. Dotzler has sought to invade the Agreement since 2005. By the terms of the proposed transfer, Mr. Dotzler seeks to transfer one (1) lump sum payment in the amount of $300,000, due on December 14, 2024, in exchange for an immediate net payment of $239,000. As a result of the structured settlement arising out of Mr. Dotzler’s prior personal injury claims, he became entitled to receive future annuity payments. The Act was enacted out of concern that structured settlement “payees,” such as Mr. Dotzler, are especially prone to being victimized, resulting in the quick dissipation of their awards (Matter of Settlement Funding of NY, 195 Misc 2d 721 [Sup. Ct. Rensselaer County 2003]). The Act protects payees from being taken advantage of by businesses seeking to acquire their structured settlement payment rights. The Act discourages such transfers by requiring would-be transferees to commence special proceedings for the purpose of seeking judicial approval of the transfer (GOL §§5-1705, 5-1706). Transferees bear the attendant filing fees and costs and may not recoup them if the application is denied (GOL§5-1704 [c]). Any purported transfer entered into after July 1, 2002 without court approval is unenforceable (GOL §5-1706), and payees may not waive their rights under the Act (GOL§5-1708 [a]). Transferees are barred from incorporating certain provisions in the transfer agreements (GOL§5-1704), and are also required to inform the payee of the terms of the proposed transfer (GOL§5-1703). The transferee must also advise the payee “in writing” “to seek independent professional advice regarding the transfer,” and the payee must either seek such advice or sign a written waiver of the opportunity to seek independent advice and that he or she declined to seek it (GOL §5-1706[c]). In evaluating a petition made pursuant to the Act, the court must make a two-prong inquiry as to whether the “the transfer is in the best interest of the payee, taking into account the welfare and support of the payee’s dependants; 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” (GOL §5-1706[b]). In making such evaluation, the court is mindful that, [t]he payment structure in all of these cases was determined by either judicial process, subject to articles 50-a and 50-b of the CPLR, or by negotiations in which the payee’s interests were represented. As such, it was presumed to be the best compensation for the payee’s injuries at the time of the verdict or settlement. To overcome this presumptive validity,…there must be a showing, by clear and convincing evidence, of an unforeseeable change in circumstances that would justify the sale of rights to future payments (Matter of Henderson Receivables Limited Partnership (DeMallie), 2 Misc 2d 463, 468 [Sup Ct Monroe County 2003]). Turning to the Petition in the instant matter, Mr. Dotzler is forty-one (41) years old, single, and has no dependants. He earns approximately $1,200 per month as a landscaper, and also receives income in the amount of $2,000, per month from that portion of his annuity which he does not seek to sell, resulting in annual total income of approximately $38,400 (Doc. 5;
