Key Takeaway
Court case analysis examining "use and operation" coverage when bus driver refused to activate lift device, comparing to Cividanes precedent and questioning the legal distinction.
This article is part of our ongoing use and operation coverage, with 14 published articles analyzing use and operation 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.
Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v Physical Medicine & Rehab of NY PC, 2018 NY Slip Op 01260 (1st Dept. 2018)
“Contrary to petitioner’s arguments, the facts of this case are distinguishable from those in Cividanes v City of New York (20 NY3d 925 ), in which the Court of Appeals found that benefits were not available under the no-fault Insurance Law because the plaintiff’s injury did not arise out of the “use or operation of a motor vehicle” (Insurance Law § 5104). In that case, the plaintiff exited a stopped bus and fell when she stepped into a hole in the street. The Court determined that the bus was neither a “proximate cause” nor an “instrumentality” that produced her injury (id. at 926 ; see also Walton v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 88 NY2d 211 ).
Here, the bus driver activated the lift device of the bus to assist Valerie Mathis when she boarded the bus. Subsequently, when she was exiting the bus, the bus driver refused to activate the lift device or to lower the bus. As a result, she was forced to place her walker out in the street, and then fell over while attempting to exit the bus.”
________
I do not buy this at all. The cited to case (civadenes) notes that when you step off a bus and get hurt, there is no coverage. Same facts here, except the lift device was not activated. As a college friend during a drinking game would say: “I call bull****”. I could not resist.
Related Articles
- Occupation of a vehicle implicated through rearranging items inside vehicle while standing outside of it
- Use, Operation and proximate cause liberally construed to afford coverage
- The buckling knee when exiting
- A person who parks a truck on the side of the road, exits it and directs traffic is not using or operating the truck
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.
Keep Reading
More Use and Operation Analysis
Use and Operation again and again
NY court finds excavator on public highway meets "use and operation" standard for no-fault coverage, even when temporarily parked and unattended during construction work.
Jun 8, 2018Coverage – use or operation
New York court clarifies that auto insurance coverage extends beyond vehicle operation to include related activities like luggage handling at bus stops.
Jan 26, 2018The buckling knee when exiting
Court rules knee buckling while exiting vehicle doesn't qualify for NY no-fault benefits - use and operation requirements explained for personal injury claims.
Feb 11, 2015MVAIC failed to disprove that the accident was the cause of the injuries
MVAIC fails to prove motor vehicle accident didn't cause injuries using inadmissible hearsay police report, resulting in summary judgment loss in NY court.
Apr 8, 2012Use and Operation – Should the SUM endorsement be read differently than the no-fault endorsement?
Analysis of use and operation coverage differences between SUM endorsement and no-fault PIP endorsement under New York insurance law.
Jul 26, 2010A person who parks a truck on the side of the road, exits it and directs traffic is not using or operating the truck
Understanding vehicle use and operation in New York auto insurance claims. Expert Long Island lawyers explain the Gallaher v Republic Franklin decision. Call 516-750-0595.
Feb 16, 2010Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What does "use and operation" mean in no-fault insurance?
Under Insurance Law §5102(b), no-fault benefits are available for injuries arising from the "use or operation" of a motor vehicle. This requires a causal connection between the vehicle and the injury. The vehicle must be more than just the situs (location) of the injury — there must be a direct nexus between the vehicle's use and the harm suffered.
What injuries qualify as arising from "use and operation" of a vehicle?
Qualifying injuries include those from driving, riding as a passenger, loading/unloading cargo, or being struck by a vehicle. Courts apply a proximate cause analysis. Injuries that merely happen near a vehicle (like slipping on ice in a parking lot unrelated to any vehicle) typically do not qualify.
Can pedestrians claim no-fault benefits under "use and operation"?
Yes. Pedestrians struck by motor vehicles are covered under no-fault as "eligible injured persons" under Insurance Law §5102(j). They can claim benefits from the vehicle's insurer. The "use and operation" requirement is readily satisfied when a pedestrian is hit by a moving vehicle.
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 use and operation 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.