Key Takeaway
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.
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.
Lazzari v Qualcon Constr., LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 04082 (1st Dept. 2018)
I am a use and operation fan. It is the one issue that any practitioner who is involved in this area of law always has to question. The gray areas are huge. This case – probably a fact pattern few who practice on this field will deal with – just another example.
And what makes this even more remarkable is that Plaintiff will want use and operation not to be found for all purposes in this case because he would have “use and operation” for his own vehicle and will collect no-fault benefits regardless of the outcome in this matter. The usual fact pattern involves a pedestrian who makes contract with a vehicle or an occurrence that is proximately caused by the vehicle.
“Initially, we agree with defendants that the serious injury threshold applies because the action is between “covered persons” (Insurance Law §§ 5104, 5102). Defendants’ excavator does not fall under the “self-propelled caterpillar or crawler-type equipment while being operated on the contract site” exclusion to the term “motor vehicle” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 311). While it is a “self-propelled caterpillar or crawler-type equipment” (see Masotto v City of New York, 38 Misc 3d 1226 n 5 ), it was being operated on a “public highway,” adjacent to and encroaching into the road on which plaintiff was driving (see Vehicle and Traffic Law §§ 125, 134). In addition, the accident arose out of the “use or operation” of the excavator, as the excavator was the “instrumentality” that produced plaintiff’s injuries (see Cividanes v City of New York, 95 AD3d 1 , affd 20 NY3d 925 ; Walton v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 88 NY2d 211 ). The fact that it was not being operated and was unattended at the time of the accident does not preclude application of the statute, as it was only temporarily parked during ongoing construction work (see Trentini v Metropolitan Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2 AD3d 957 , lv dismissed 2 NY3d 823 ; cf. Wooster v Soriano, 167 AD2d 233 ).”
Related Articles
- Whether the SUM endorsement should be read differently than the no-fault endorsement
- How use, operation and proximate cause are liberally construed to afford coverage
- When directing traffic after parking doesn’t constitute use or operation
- Vehicle occupation while rearranging items from outside the vehicle
- Coverage issues when a knee buckles while exiting a vehicle
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this post’s publication in 2018, there may have been amendments to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 311’s motor vehicle definition or updates to Insurance Law § 5102’s “covered person” provisions that could affect use and operation determinations. Practitioners should verify current statutory language and recent appellate decisions interpreting the exclusions for self-propelled equipment and their application to construction site incidents.
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
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.
Feb 24, 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, 2018On the motorcycle and hit again – Is there coverage?
Court rules motorcycle passenger thrown from bike but struck by it again remains "occupying" vehicle for no-fault insurance exclusion purposes in complex accident case.
May 27, 2015Use, Operation and proximate cause liberally construed to afford coverage
New York no-fault insurance coverage expanded through liberal construction of use, operation and proximate cause requirements in rescue injury case.
May 14, 2013Use and Operation
Cividanes v City of New York case analysis examining "use and operation" requirements for no-fault coverage when plaintiff injured exiting bus into pothole.
Mar 1, 2012Occupation of a vehicle implicated through rearranging items inside vehicle while standing outside of it
Expert analysis of NY vehicle occupation law. Learn how Rosado v Hartford expanded coverage for delivery workers and commercial vehicle operators. Call 516-750-0595.
Mar 18, 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.