Key Takeaway
Cividanes v City of New York case analysis examining "use and operation" requirements for no-fault coverage when plaintiff injured exiting bus into pothole.
This article is part of our ongoing coverage coverage, with 155 published articles analyzing coverage issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
Cividanes v City of New York, 2012 NY Slip Op 02179 (1st Dept. 2012)
FACTS:
“This dispute arises from an accident that occurred on the morning of May 28, 2008. Plaintiff was allegedly injured as she exited a bus owned and operated by defendants Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority and New York City Transit Authority (defendants). Plaintiff testified at a General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing that as she exited the rear of the bus, she “stepped off the last step into a hole and fell.” She stated that the bus did not pull completely into the bus stop; she was let out “in front of the bus stop.” The bus continued on its route. She described the hole into which she stepped and fell as being “pretty far away from the curb;” while the front of the bus “pulled about a foot away from the curb,” the “back of the bus was on an angle, so it was further away from the curb.”
SECOND DEPARTMENT VIEWPOINT:
“Although is unclear what the Court meant when it stated that the plaintiff was not completely outside of the bus when the accident occurred, to the extent the decision in Manuel reaches a contrary conclusion under seemingly similar circumstances to this case, we decline to follow it as inconsistent with Walton. In Manuel, the Court seems to be conflating negligence during the use of a vehicle with the additional requirement of the No-Fault Law that the vehicle itself be the proximate cause of the victims’s injuries. The terms, however, are not synonymous. Indeed, in Argentina v Emery World Wide Delivery Corp. (93 NY2d 554 ), the Court of Appeals highlighted the differences, in distinguishing Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388(1), which imposes liability on all vehicle owners for accidents resulting from negligence in the permissive “use or operation” of their vehicles, with the No-Fault Law. In Argentina, the Court held that under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388(1) the vehicle need not be the proximate cause of the victim’s injury before the vehicle’s owner may be held liable, thereby distinguishing Walton, which requires that the vehicle be the proximate cause of the victim’s injuries to trigger the No-Fault Law.”
WHY THE SECOND DEPARTMENT IS WRONG
“In Manuel, however, the Second Department considered the bus driver’s positioning of the bus next to a hole in the street, when he pulled over at the bus stop, to be a sufficient predicate to trigger the No-Fault Insurance Law. Of course, that conduct would be sufficient to trigger section 388(1), which imposes liability on all vehicle owners for accidents resulting from negligence in the permissive use of their vehicles. But under Walton, this is not sufficient to trigger the No-Fault Law, which contains the additional requirement that the vehicle be the proximate cause of the injury (cf. Travelers Property Cas. Co. v Landau, 27 AD3d at 477-478); Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. (Hayden), supra, 209 AD2d 929). We thus hold, [*8]that liability for the injuries sustained from a fall in a hole after alighting from a bus are more properly addressed outside the area of the No-Fault Law”
Related Articles
- Use and Operation – Should the SUM endorsement be read differently than the no-fault endorsement?
- A person who parks a truck on the side of the road, exits it and directs traffic is not using or operating the truck
- Use, Operation and proximate cause liberally construed to afford coverage
- The buckling knee when exiting
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2012 post discussing “use and operation” coverage under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388, there may have been subsequent amendments to no-fault insurance regulations, updates to coverage determination guidelines, or new appellate decisions that have refined the analysis of proximate causation in bus-related accidents. Practitioners should verify current statutory provisions and recent case law developments when evaluating use and operation coverage issues.
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
About This Topic
Insurance Coverage Issues in New York
Coverage disputes determine whether an insurance policy provides benefits for a particular claim. In the no-fault context, coverage questions involve policy inception, named insured status, vehicle registration requirements, priority of coverage among multiple insurers, and the applicability of exclusions. These articles examine how New York courts resolve coverage disputes, the burden of proof on coverage defenses, and the interplay between regulatory requirements and policy language.
155 published articles in Coverage
Keep Reading
More Coverage Analysis
IME no-show is a policy defense triggering the hourly attorney fee provision
Learn how IME no-show defenses trigger hourly attorney fee provisions in NY no-fault insurance. Court rules failure to attend IME is policy defense.
May 22, 2021Contractual deemer
New York courts examine when out-of-state insurers can avoid no-fault coverage obligations through contractual deemer provisions and policy language analysis.
Apr 24, 2021Triable issue of fact found as to the issue of whether an injury was causally related to a motor vehicle accident
Court finds triable issue of fact on injury causation in motor vehicle accident case despite strong radiological evidence showing pre-existing degenerative condition.
Aug 19, 2010MVAIC is at it again
New York appellate court ruling reveals ongoing jurisdictional split over MVAIC exhaustion requirements in no-fault insurance coverage disputes.
Oct 17, 2019Progressive cannot prove they mailed documents
Progressive insurance company fails to prove proper mailing of claim denials, court finds insufficient evidence of standard office procedures in NY no-fault case.
May 4, 2015Documentation shows wrong insurance carrier was sued
Court ruling shows defendant successfully proved wrong insurance carrier was sued using claims manager's affidavit, potentially breaking from precedent requiring underwriter...
Sep 9, 2013Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What are common coverage defenses in no-fault insurance?
Common coverage defenses include policy voidance due to material misrepresentation on the insurance application, lapse in coverage, the vehicle not being covered under the policy, staged accident allegations, and the applicability of policy exclusions. Coverage issues are often treated as conditions precedent, meaning the insurer bears the burden of proving the defense. Unlike medical necessity denials, coverage defenses go to whether any benefits are owed at all.
What happens if there's no valid insurance policy at the time of the accident?
If there is no valid no-fault policy covering the vehicle, the injured person can file a claim with MVAIC (Motor Vehicle Accident Indemnification Corporation), which serves as a safety net for people injured in accidents involving uninsured vehicles. MVAIC provides the same basic economic loss benefits as a standard no-fault policy, but the application process has strict requirements and deadlines.
What is policy voidance in no-fault insurance?
Policy voidance occurs when an insurer declares that the insurance policy is void ab initio (from the beginning) due to material misrepresentation on the application — such as listing a false garaging address or failing to disclose drivers. Under Insurance Law §3105, the misrepresentation must be material to the risk assumed by the insurer. If the policy is voided, the insurer has no obligation to pay any claims, though the burden of proving the misrepresentation falls on the insurer.
How does priority of coverage work in New York no-fault?
Under 11 NYCRR §65-3.12, no-fault benefits are paid by the insurer of the vehicle the injured person occupied. For pedestrians and non-occupants, the claim is made against the insurer of the vehicle that struck them. If multiple vehicles are involved, regulations establish a hierarchy of coverage. If no coverage is available, the injured person can apply to MVAIC. These priority rules determine which insurer bears financial responsibility and are frequently litigated.
What is SUM coverage in New York?
Supplementary Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (SUM) coverage, governed by 11 NYCRR §60-2, provides additional protection when the at-fault driver has no insurance or insufficient coverage. SUM allows you to recover damages beyond basic no-fault benefits, up to your policy's SUM limits, when the at-fault driver's liability coverage is inadequate. SUM arbitration is mandatory and governed by the policy terms, and claims must be made within the applicable statute of limitations.
Was this article helpful?
About the Author
Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.
Jason Tenenbaum is the founding attorney of the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., headquartered at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746. With over 24 years of experience since founding the firm in 2002, Jason has written more than 1,000 appeals, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million for clients across Long Island, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.
Jason is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts. His 2,353+ published legal articles analyzing New York case law, procedural developments, and litigation strategy make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state. He earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law.
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a coverage matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.