You are here: / / RECOVERY OF A $280,000 SETTLEMENT PURPORTEDLY PAID TO DEFENDANTS BY PLAINTIFF...

RECOVERY OF A $280,000 SETTLEMENT PURPORTEDLY PAID TO DEFENDANTS BY PLAINTIFF IS BARRED BY THE STRUCTURED SETTLEMENT PROTECTION ACT WHICH REQUIRES COURT APPROVAL PRIOR TO PAYMENT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint seeking to recover settlement funds ($280,000) purportedly made to the defendants should have been dismissed. The settlement was never approved by a court in violation of the Structured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA) (General Obligations Law 5-1701):

… [D]efendants demonstrated that the complaint fails to state a cause of action, on the ground that the plaintiff’s claims are prohibited by the SSPA. Enacted in 2002, the purpose of the SSPA … was to establish “procedural safeguards for those who sell settlements that are awarded as a result of litigation,” due to a recognition that “[m]any of the people who receive such settlements are being compensated for very serious, debilitating injuries, and have been unfairly taken advantage of in the past by the businesses that purchase their settlements” … . “Under this law, transfers such as the one at issue are prohibited unless approved by a court of competent jurisdiction based upon express findings … that the transfer is in the best interest of the payee and that the discount rate, fees and expenses used to determine the net amount advanced are fair and reasonable” (… General Obligations Law § 5-1706). In circumstances … where payment for a structured settlement transfer is made to the payee prior to the court’s approval of the transfer, whether intentionally or due to a mistaken belief that the transfer had already been approved, a proposed transferee must seek nunc pro tunc approval of the transfer, and such approval is not guaranteed … . Pinnacle Capital, LLC v O’Bleanis, 2023 NY Slip Op 01540, Second Dept 3-22-23

Practice Point: The Structured Settlement Protection Act (General Obligations Law 5-17-1 et seq) requires court approval of structured settlements. If, as here, there was no court approval before plaintiff purportedly paid the funds to defendants, the plaintiff seeking to recover the funds from the defendants may be out of luck.

You might also like
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH RPAPL 1306; DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT EXERCISED SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER THE MEANS AND METHODS OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK (SECOND DEPT).
THE BUILDER OF THE HOUSE WAS NOT A NECESSARY PARTY IN THIS ACTION AGAINST THE SELLER BY THE PURCHASER; EVEN IF THE BUILDER WERE A NECESSARY PARTY, THE COURT SHOULD HAVE SUMMONED THE BUILDER ITSELF PURSUANT TO CPLR 1001 (b) RATHER THAN DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
PROOF OF A PROBATION VIOLATION SUBMITTED AFTER THE CLOSE OF EVIDENCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL AT HER NURSING HOME AND EMERGENCY PERSONNEL FOUND HER UNATTENDED ON THE FLOOR WITH NO IDENTIFICATION BAND; DEFENDANT’S EXPERT, A CARDIAC CRITICAL CARE PHYSICIAN, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FAMILIARITY WITH NURSING HOME CARE AND DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PLEADINGS; SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
Child’s Out-Of-Court Statements Insufficient to Support Abuse Finding
Elevator Company Which Agrees to Keep Elevator in a Safe Operating Condition May Be Liable to Injured Passenger
TO, SUA SPONTE, DECIDE BRANCHES OF A MOTION AND CROSS-MOTION ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES DEPRIVED PLAIINTIFF OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO REFUTE THE JUDGE’S DETERMINATION (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

​ THE MISDEMEANOR INFORMATION WAS BASED ON THE POLICE OFFICER’S UNEXPLAINED... THE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT SUIT AGAINST THE STATE SUFFICIENTLY...