In Matter of Settlement Capital Corp., (194 Misc. 2d 711 [2003]), petitioner Settlement Capital proposed to purchase $ 35,000 of the $ 81,165 payment due to the payee on April 25, 2007, at a net advance of $ 13,250, applying a discount rate of 18.621%. The payee indicated that she intended to use the $ 13,250 advance in order to pay her family's credit card debt, which was in excess of $ 15,000. The petition was filed on January 7, 2003, and made returnable February 3, 2003, within less than three months of the payee's receipt of her periodic payment in the amount of $ 40,000, payable on April 25, 2003. In addition to raising numerous concerns regarding the application, the court, in denying the petition, stated the following (194 Misc. 2d 711, 713, 756 N.Y.S.2d 728 [2003]): "The timing of the application is significant because the papers do not adequately address very fundamental questions, to wit, (1) why is it necessary to pay off the credit card debt in full at this time? and (2) why is it that the payee cannot wait just a little longer (until Apr. 25, 2003) to utilize the next periodic payment ($ 40,000) to pay off her credit card debt? While the court recognizes that the payee would most certainly incur additional interest expense in awaiting the April 25, 2003 periodic payment, the court, in evaluating the instant application, is unable on the present record to conclude that the benefits of the proposed transaction would outweigh those to be gained simply by waiting a few months. Absent further information, the court is of the view that it cannot make a finding that the proposed agreement is in the best interest of the payee, 'taking into account the welfare and support of the payee's dependents' (General Obligations Law 5-1706 [b])." The Court, in denying the petition, stated the following: "Notably, as a part of its review, the court is required to make a finding that the proposed discount rate used to determine the gross advance amount is fair and reasonable (see, General Obligations Law 5-1706 [b]]) . . . As noted, a discount rate of 18.621% has been applied against the $ 35,000 figure to arrive at a gross advance amount of $ 15,750. No explanation has been presented as to why this particular discount rate was selected and/or why it should be deemed fair and reasonable. In the absence of such evidence, the court is of the view that it is unable to make the required statutory finding."