Revocation of the assignment – material misrepresentations under New Jersey and New York law

The affidavit still needed a proper certificate. In Golden Age Medical Supply v Clarendon, 2010 NY Slip Op 52010(U), the Appellate Term gave the insurer a conditional chance to defeat the provider’s partial-summary-judgment motion. It did not grant dismissal.

Historical note: Golden Age v Clarendon, 2010 NY Slip Op 52010(U), made relief conditional on curing an affidavit; its New Jersey discussion did not establish cancellation, and current New York materiality analysis requires separate review under §3105.

Last reviewed: September 2026.

The assignment and the policy were different questions

Clarendon relied on a stipulation signed after the services to argue that the assignment had been revoked. The court rejected that defense under 11 NYCRR 65-3.11(d): an assignor cannot unilaterally revoke the assignment after the covered services have been rendered. The patient’s later agreement did not dispose of the provider’s submitted claims.

The insurer also alleged misrepresentations in obtaining a New Jersey policy. Although the opinion discussed New Jersey rescission law, it expressly found no proof that Clarendon had cancelled this policy. Its documents raised a factual issue about procurement, but did not entitle it to dismissal.

The affidavit cure was a condition, not a completed event

The insurer had supplied a certificate of authenticity instead of the required certificate of conformity for the New Jersey oath. The November 19, 2010 order allowed 60 days after service of the decision and entered order with notice of entry to serve and file the identical affidavit with the proper certificate.

If that condition was met, the provider’s motion would be denied. If not, the original order would remain affirmed. The published opinion does not tell us whether the insurer later complied. This was a case-specific cure, not a general sixty-day extension for affidavits.

For a later procurement dispute, do not treat an allegation of fraud as proof that a policy has been rescinded. Identify the policy, the governing law and the relief actually sought.

Jason’s November 2010 comments

These comments described the issues Jason saw in the appeal. The opinion did not establish a completed New Jersey cancellation, and the claim that this was the court’s first discussion is his observation:

This is the first time the court ever discussed the technical “nitty gritty” involving the revocation of an AOB.

This case also involved the retroactive cancellation of an insurance policy under New Jersey law due to the making of misrepresentations, or aiding and abetting the same in the procurement of the insurance policy.  The case also discussed the availability of this defense under New York law as it involves a non-innocent party.

Connect to the Encyclopedia

Start with the fraudulent procurement and material misrepresentation hub, then compare these records:

• Universal Health (2014): proof of a Florida rescission
• Renelique (March 2016): a factual issue without entitlement to dismissal
• Renelique (November 2016): materiality and competing motion burdens
• Alignment (2020): ownership, use and the underwriting record
• Maxford (2018): materiality and a prior default order

For review of a particular no-fault dispute, contact the firm with the policy, application and claim record.