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.
Use and operation, again — Read Article →In-depth legal analysis from Attorney Jason Tenenbaum — covering court rulings, legal standards, and practical guidance on use and operation under New York law.
Legal Analysis
Use and Operation is a recurring topic in New York insurance and personal injury law. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has published 14 articles analyzing use and operation issues, covering court decisions, legal standards, and practical strategies for practitioners and clients. Browse the collection below for in-depth legal analysis from a Long Island attorney with over two decades of experience.
These articles examine how New York courts have addressed use and operation questions across a range of factual settings. Attorney Tenenbaum analyzes specific case holdings from Nassau County District Court, Suffolk County courts, New York City Civil Court, and the Appellate Term, identifying the legal standards judges apply, the evidence required to meet those standards, and the procedural pitfalls that can derail otherwise meritorious claims. Each article is written for practicing attorneys and informed laypersons who need to understand the real-world application of New York statutes and regulations. The firm handles use and operation cases throughout Long Island, including Nassau County, Suffolk County, and all five boroughs of New York City, with a focus on delivering results-oriented representation grounded in real courtroom experience. For legal advice about a specific use and operation matter, contact the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. With over 24 years of experience and more than 2,353 published legal articles, Attorney Tenenbaum is one of the most prolific legal commentators in New York State, providing clients and fellow practitioners with the detailed case law analysis they need to make informed legal decisions.
Frequently Asked Questions
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.
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.
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.
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.
Use and operation, again — Read Article →
New York court clarifies that auto insurance coverage extends beyond vehicle operation to include related activities like luggage handling at bus stops.
Coverage – use or operation — Read Article →
Important Nakhla case clarifies "use and operation" coverage when person exits vehicle and is struck - affects first-party benefits and SUM coverage priority rules.
Use and occupation — Read Article →
Court rules bus passenger's injury from stepping into street hole doesn't qualify for no-fault benefits under "use and operation" standard in NY insurance law.
Another use and operation — Read Article →
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.
On the motorcycle and hit again – Is there coverage? — Read Article →Need Legal Guidance?
Get a Free Case Evaluation
No fees unless we win. Available 24/7.
Court rules knee buckling while exiting vehicle doesn't qualify for NY no-fault benefits - use and operation requirements explained for personal injury claims.
The buckling knee when exiting — Read Article →
New York no-fault insurance coverage expanded through liberal construction of use, operation and proximate cause requirements in rescue injury case.
Use, Operation and proximate cause liberally construed to afford coverage — Read Article →
MVAIC fails to prove motor vehicle accident didn't cause injuries using inadmissible hearsay police report, resulting in summary judgment loss in NY court.
MVAIC failed to disprove that the accident was the cause of the injuries — Read Article →
Cividanes v City of New York case analysis examining "use and operation" requirements for no-fault coverage when plaintiff injured exiting bus into pothole.
Use and Operation — Read Article →
Analysis of use and operation coverage differences between SUM endorsement and no-fault PIP endorsement under New York insurance law.
Use and Operation – Should the SUM endorsement be read differently than the no-fault endorsement? — Read Article →
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.
Occupation of a vehicle implicated through rearranging items inside vehicle while standing outside of it — Read Article →
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.
A person who parks a truck on the side of the road, exits it and directs traffic is not using or operating the truck — Read Article →
Florida Supreme Court ruling expands motor vehicle "use and operation" coverage to include robbery victim changing tire, demonstrating broad interpretation of no-fault benefits.
Robbing someone while they are chaging a tire is considered use and operation in Florida — Read Article →The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum publishes detailed legal analysis on use and operation and related topics as part of an ongoing commitment to legal education and transparency. Since 2008, Attorney Tenenbaum has written over 2,353 articles examining how New York courts decide cases involving personal injury, no-fault insurance, employment discrimination, and complex litigation matters. Each article is based on an actual court decision and provides the kind of substantive analysis that practitioners and clients need to understand the current state of the law.
Attorney Tenenbaum brings over 24 years of New York litigation experience to every article. His practice spans Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He has handled thousands of cases involving insurance disputes, personal injury claims, and employment law matters, giving him a practical perspective that academic commentators often lack. The articles in this collection reflect that experience, offering readers insight into how judges actually apply legal standards in contested cases.
If you are dealing with a legal issue related to use and operation or any topic covered on this blog, the firm offers free initial consultations by phone or in person. Call (516) 750-0595 to speak with an attorney, or visit the contact page to submit a case review request online. No fee is charged unless the firm recovers compensation on your behalf. The firm's six attorneys bring over 112 combined years of legal experience and speak English, Spanish, Italian, Japanese, and Russian, ensuring clients can communicate in the language they are most comfortable with. Attorney Tenenbaum is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts, and he has authored more than 2,353 published legal articles that attorneys, judges, and insurance professionals across the state rely on for guidance.
New York's legal framework for use and operation matters involves an intricate web of statutes, regulations, and case law that has developed over decades. The state's court system — including the Civil Court, District Courts, Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Appellate Division, and Court of Appeals — each plays a distinct role in shaping how use and operation cases are litigated and decided. Trial-level decisions in Nassau County Supreme Court, Suffolk County Supreme Court, and the New York City Civil Courts establish important factual precedents, while appellate rulings create binding legal standards that all lower courts must follow.
The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs procedure in New York civil litigation and contains provisions that directly impact use and operation cases. CPLR Article 31 establishes the scope and methods of disclosure, including depositions under CPLR 3107, interrogatories under CPLR 3130, and document demands under CPLR 3120. CPLR 3212 provides the standard for summary judgment, requiring the movant to establish a prima facie case through admissible evidence and shifting the burden to the opponent to raise a triable issue of fact. CPLR 3215 governs default judgments, which require proof of service, proof of the facts constituting the claim, and proof of the amount due. Understanding these procedural tools is essential for anyone involved in use and operation litigation in New York.
Statutes of limitations vary significantly depending on the type of claim. General negligence and personal injury claims carry a three-year deadline under CPLR 214(5). Medical malpractice claims have a shortened two-and-a-half-year deadline under CPLR 214-a. Claims against municipalities require a Notice of Claim within 90 days under General Municipal Law Section 50-e. No-fault insurance claims have their own regulatory deadlines, including the 30-day filing window for applications and the 45-day submission period for provider claims. Employment discrimination claims under the New York State Human Rights Law generally have a three-year statute of limitations, while federal Title VII claims require EEOC filing within 300 days.
The Appellate Term and Appellate Division regularly issue decisions that clarify and refine the legal standards applicable to use and operation cases. The Second Department, which covers Long Island and parts of New York City, is particularly active in this area. Its decisions on evidentiary standards, burden-shifting frameworks, and procedural requirements directly affect how trial courts evaluate motions and how attorneys prepare their cases. Attorney Tenenbaum monitors these decisions and analyzes them in the articles on this page, providing practitioners with the timely legal commentary they need to stay current.
The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. is located at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746, centrally situated on Long Island to serve clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, and the five boroughs of New York City. With over 24 years of experience and more than 1,000 appeals written, Attorney Tenenbaum combines deep legal knowledge with practical courtroom experience. If you need help with a use and operation matter, call (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
Successful outcomes in use and operation cases often depend on procedural compliance as much as substantive merit. In no-fault insurance litigation, the prima facie case standard requires the plaintiff to submit admissible evidence establishing the claim was properly submitted, overdue, and unpaid. If the defendant raises a defense — such as an IME no-show, EUO non-appearance, lack of medical necessity, or fee schedule dispute — the burden shifts to the plaintiff to present evidence creating a triable issue of fact. Summary judgment motions under CPLR 3212 require the movant to make a prima facie showing through affidavits, deposition testimony, or documentary evidence, and the opposition must raise a genuine factual dispute to avoid dismissal.
In personal injury cases, the discovery process is governed by CPLR Article 31 and involves depositions of parties and witnesses, exchange of medical records under CPLR 3121 authorizations, physical and mental examinations, and expert disclosure. Once discovery is complete, either party may file a note of issue certifying readiness for trial, after which a 120-day deadline applies for filing summary judgment motions under CPLR 3212(a). Motion practice often determines the outcome of cases before trial, and understanding the specific evidentiary standards applied by courts in your jurisdiction is essential. The articles on this page analyze these standards in detail, drawing on real cases litigated by Attorney Tenenbaum and decisions from courts across the state.
The firm serves clients throughout Long Island, including the towns and villages of Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, and Massapequa, as well as all five boroughs of New York City. Attorney Tenenbaum regularly appears in Nassau County Supreme Court, Suffolk County Supreme Court, the New York City Civil Court, the American Arbitration Association, the Workers' Compensation Board, and the Appellate Term and Appellate Division of the Second Department. If you need legal assistance with a use and operation matter or any topic discussed in these articles, call (516) 750-0595 for a free, confidential case evaluation.
The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. was founded in 2002 and has grown into one of Long Island's most respected personal injury, employment law, and insurance litigation firms. The firm's six attorneys — led by founding partner Jason Tenenbaum — bring over 112 combined years of legal experience to every case. The team speaks English, Spanish, Italian, Japanese, and Russian, ensuring that clients from diverse backgrounds can communicate in the language they are most comfortable with during what is often one of the most stressful periods of their lives.
Attorney Tenenbaum earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law and is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York. He has written more than 1,000 appellate briefs, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million in verdicts and settlements for injured individuals and workers throughout Long Island and New York City. His 2,353+ published legal articles on New York case law make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state, and his analysis is relied upon by attorneys, judges, and insurance professionals across all four Appellate Division departments.
The firm operates on a contingency fee basis for personal injury and employment discrimination cases, which means clients pay no attorney fees unless the firm recovers compensation on their behalf. Every consultation is free, confidential, and without obligation. The firm's centrally located Huntington Station office provides convenient access to Nassau County Supreme Court in Mineola, Suffolk County Supreme Court in Riverhead, the Nassau County District Court, Suffolk County courts in Central Islip, and the New York City Civil Court. Whether you need help with a car accident claim, a workplace discrimination complaint, a no-fault insurance denial, a workers' compensation dispute, or any other legal matter, the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. is ready to fight for your rights.
Questions About Use and Operation?
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has been writing about use and operation since 2008, drawing on 24+ years of practice. Get a free, confidential case evaluation.
No fees unless we win · Available 24/7 · Hablamos Español
Injured? Don't Wait.
Get Your Free Case Evaluation Today
No fees unless we win — available 24/7 for emergencies.