Bicycle Accident Complaint

BICYCLE ACCIDENT COMPLAINT — NEW YORK

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Parties
3. Jurisdiction and Venue
4. Statutory Framework (No-Fault and Serious Injury for a Bicyclist)
5. General Allegations (Accident Facts)
6. First Cause of Action — Negligence (Against Driver-Defendant)
7. Second Cause of Action — Negligence Per Se (Against Driver-Defendant)
8. Third Cause of Action — Statutory Owner Liability / Respondeat Superior (Against Owner-Defendant)
9. Damages
10. Comparative Fault, No-Fault, Helmet, and Insurance Allegations
11. Jury Demand
12. Prayer for Relief
13. Signature Block
14. Verification
15. New York Practice Notes
16. Sources and References

1. CAPTION

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF [COUNTY]

Index No.: [________________]

VERIFIED COMPLAINT (BICYCLE COLLISION)

Jury Trial Demanded

Plaintiff, by [his/her/their] attorneys, [LAW FIRM NAME], complaining of the Defendants, alleges upon knowledge as to Plaintiff and Plaintiff's own acts, and upon information and belief as to all other matters, as follows:

2. PARTIES

1. At all relevant times, Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME] ("Plaintiff") was and is a resident of the County of [COUNTY], State of New York, and at all material times was lawfully operating a bicycle upon the public highways of this State.

2. Upon information and belief, Defendant [DRIVER NAME] ("Driver-Defendant") was and is a resident of the County of [COUNTY], State of [STATE].

3. Upon information and belief, Defendant [OWNER / EMPLOYER NAME] ("Owner-Defendant") [is a resident of / is a business entity organized under the laws of] the State of [STATE] with its principal place of business at [ADDRESS], and at all material times owned, maintained, and/or controlled the vehicle operated by Driver-Defendant and/or employed Driver-Defendant.

3. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has jurisdiction over the Defendants pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 301 and § 302 because the Defendants reside in, transact business in, and/or committed a tortious act within the State of New York.

5. Venue is proper in this County pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 503 because one or more parties resided in this County when the action was commenced. [If no party then resided in New York, plead Plaintiff's county designation; check special venue statutes.]

6. The amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts that would otherwise have jurisdiction.

4. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK (No-Fault and Serious Injury for a Bicyclist)

7. This action arises from a motor-vehicle collision and is governed by New York common-law tort principles and the New York Vehicle and Traffic Law.

8. At all material times, Plaintiff was lawfully operating a bicycle upon a roadway. Under N.Y. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1231, a person riding a bicycle upon a roadway is granted all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle, except as otherwise provided. Plaintiff was therefore a lawful user of the roadway entitled to the full protection of the Vehicle and Traffic Law.

9. Plaintiff was struck by a "motor vehicle" within the meaning of the No-Fault Law and is a "covered person" under N.Y. Insurance Law § 5102. As a direct and proximate result of the Collision, Plaintiff sustained a "serious injury" as defined in N.Y. Insurance Law § 5102(d), including but not limited to [SELECT / DESCRIBE — e.g., a fracture; significant disfigurement; permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function, or system; permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member; and/or a significant limitation of use of a body function or system].

5. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS (Accident Facts)

10. On [__/__/____] at approximately [TIME], Plaintiff was lawfully operating a bicycle traveling [DIRECTION] on [ROADWAY] at or near [INTERSECTION / LANDMARK / MILE MARKER], in [CITY/TOWN], County of [COUNTY], State of New York (the "Collision").

11. Plaintiff was riding in a lawful and prudent manner — [as near to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway as practicable / within a marked bicycle lane / lawfully occupying the lane where conditions required] — and, to the extent the Collision occurred during darkness, Plaintiff's bicycle was equipped with a lighted front lamp and rear reflector as contemplated by VTL § 1236.

12. At the same time and place, Driver-Defendant was operating a [YEAR, MAKE, MODEL, PLATE NO.] [passenger vehicle / pickup truck / SUV / commercial vehicle] ("Defendant's Vehicle"), owned by Owner-Defendant.

13. Traffic, lighting, and weather conditions were [describe — e.g., clear, dry, daylight].

14. Defendant(s) operated, maintained, and controlled Defendant's Vehicle negligently, carelessly, and recklessly, and the Collision occurred when Driver-Defendant [SELECT / DESCRIBE THE MANNER OF COLLISION — e.g., overtook and passed Plaintiff's bicycle without leaving a safe distance and sideswiped or struck Plaintiff ("unsafe pass"); turned right across Plaintiff's path of travel ("right hook"); turned left across the path of Plaintiff's oncoming bicycle ("left cross"); opened a parked vehicle's door into Plaintiff's path ("dooring"); failed to yield the right-of-way at the intersection; followed Plaintiff's bicycle too closely and struck it from the rear; pulled out from a private drive or side street into Plaintiff's path].

15. Although Plaintiff and Plaintiff's bicycle were plainly visible, Driver-Defendant "looked but failed to see" Plaintiff, misjudged Plaintiff's speed, position, and distance, and/or failed to keep a proper lookout for bicyclists lawfully sharing the roadway.

16. Plaintiff had the right-of-way and was exercising due care for [his/her/their] own safety at all material times.

17. As a direct and proximate result of the Collision, Plaintiff — an unprotected road user exposed to the full mass and force of a motor vehicle — was thrown from the bicycle and sustained severe, painful, and permanent personal injuries, including but not limited to [LIST INJURIES — e.g., orthopedic fractures, traumatic brain injury, spinal injury, internal injuries, road rash / degloving, and disfiguring scarring].

18. Because a bicyclist has no enclosure, restraint system, or crumple zone, the forces of the Collision caused Plaintiff to suffer catastrophic injuries materially more severe than those typically sustained by occupants of enclosed vehicles.

19. Plaintiff received emergency care at [HOSPITAL / EMS PROVIDER] and has since undergone [SURGERIES / HOSPITALIZATION / REHABILITATION / ONGOING TREATMENT], and will require future medical care.

6. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION — NEGLIGENCE (Against Driver-Defendant)

20. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

21. Driver-Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty to operate Defendant's Vehicle in a reasonably safe manner, in compliance with applicable statutes, regulations, and the common law, to keep a proper lookout for bicyclists lawfully sharing the roadway, and to exercise due care to avoid colliding with a bicyclist.

22. Driver-Defendant breached that duty by, among other things:

• Failing to keep a proper and careful lookout for Plaintiff's plainly visible bicycle;
• Overtaking and passing Plaintiff's bicycle without leaving a safe distance and without remaining clear until safely past;
• Turning right across the path of Plaintiff's bicycle ("right hook") when it was unsafe to do so;
• Turning left across the path of Plaintiff's oncoming bicycle ("left cross") when it was unsafe to do so;
• Opening, or causing to be opened, a vehicle door into the path of Plaintiff's bicycle when it was unsafe to do so ("dooring");
• Failing to yield the right-of-way to Plaintiff;
• Following Plaintiff's bicycle more closely than was reasonable and prudent;
• Operating Defendant's Vehicle at an unlawful and/or unsafe speed for the conditions;
• Driving while distracted or inattentive; and
• Failing to maintain proper control of Defendant's Vehicle.

23. Driver-Defendant's negligence was a direct and proximate cause of the Collision and of Plaintiff's resulting injuries and damages.

7. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION — NEGLIGENCE PER SE (Against Driver-Defendant)

24. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

25. The New York Vehicle and Traffic Law imposes specific duties on Driver-Defendant for the protection of persons lawfully using the roadway, including bicyclists such as Plaintiff. These include, as applicable to the manner of the Collision:

• VTL § 1231 — a person riding a bicycle upon a roadway is granted all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle, confirming Plaintiff's status as a lawful user of the roadway entitled to the protection of the Rules of the Road;
• VTL § 1146 — every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicyclist upon any roadway and shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary;
• VTL § 1122 — the operator of a vehicle overtaking, from behind, a bicycle proceeding on the same side of a roadway shall pass to the left of the bicycle at a safe distance until safely clear thereof;
• VTL § 1141 — a driver intending to turn left within an intersection, or into an alley, private road, or driveway, shall yield the right-of-way to a vehicle (including a bicycle) approaching from the opposite direction so close as to constitute an immediate hazard;
• VTL § 1140 — right-of-way rules for vehicles approaching or entering an intersection;
• VTL § 1142 — duty to stop and yield at stop and yield signs;
• VTL § 1143 — a driver about to enter or cross a roadway from any place other than another roadway shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles approaching on the roadway;
• VTL § 1129 — a driver shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent; and
• VTL § 1214 — duty not to open a vehicle door into moving traffic until it is reasonably safe to do so and without interfering with the movement of other traffic ("dooring").

26. Plaintiff is within the class of persons the foregoing statutes were enacted to protect, and the Collision is the type of harm those statutes were designed to prevent.

27. Driver-Defendant violated [CITE THE SPECIFIC SECTION(S) APPLICABLE], and was issued a summons for [TRAFFIC CITATION, IF ANY]. Under New York law, an unexcused violation of a statute imposing a clear legal duty (such as the Vehicle and Traffic Law) constitutes negligence per se, and such violation was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

8. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION — STATUTORY OWNER LIABILITY / RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (Against Owner-Defendant)

28. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

29. At all relevant times, Owner-Defendant was the owner of Defendant's Vehicle within the meaning of VTL § 388(1), and Driver-Defendant operated Defendant's Vehicle with the express or implied permission and consent of Owner-Defendant.

30. Pursuant to VTL § 388, Owner-Defendant is vicariously liable for the negligence of any person operating Defendant's Vehicle with permission, including Driver-Defendant.

31. Alternatively, at the time of the Collision Driver-Defendant was acting within the course and scope of [his/her/their] employment with Owner-Defendant, rendering Owner-Defendant liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

32. Owner-Defendant's statutory and/or vicarious liability was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

9. DAMAGES

33. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence, Plaintiff has sustained and seeks recovery of:

• Past and future medical, hospital, surgical, rehabilitative, and related expenses (to the extent not constituting basic economic loss recoverable as No-Fault first-party benefits);
• Future medical and life care — anticipated surgeries, therapy, assistive devices, prosthetics, and long-term care, to be proven at trial;
• Past and future loss of earnings and impairment of earning capacity;
• Physical pain, suffering, and mental anguish — past and future;
• Permanent personal injury, physical impairment, and disfigurement, including scarring from road rash and surgical intervention;
• Loss of enjoyment of life; and
• Property damage to the bicycle, cycling gear, helmet, electronics, and personal effects, including loss of use and diminution in value.

34. Except as may be limited by N.Y. Ins. Law § 5104(d) (a narrow $100,000 non-economic-damages cap applicable only where the injured claimant is at fault and was uninsured/impaired/committing a felony), no other statutory cap limits Plaintiff's damages under current New York law.

35. Pursuant to C.P.L.R. § 3017(c), Plaintiff does not state a specific dollar amount but alleges that the damages sought exceed the jurisdictional limits of all lower courts that would otherwise have jurisdiction.

10. COMPARATIVE FAULT, NO-FAULT, HELMET, AND INSURANCE ALLEGATIONS

36. Any culpable conduct attributable to Plaintiff, including comparative fault, is governed by N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1411 and, to the extent Plaintiff's culpable conduct is not greater than the culpable conduct of Defendant(s), shall diminish the recovery only in proportion to such fault, without barring recovery.

37. Plaintiff has complied with, or will comply with, all conditions precedent applicable to any No-Fault, uninsured/underinsured, or supplementary uninsured motorist claim, and reserves all rights against the applicable carrier and/or MVAIC.

11. JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable as of right, pursuant to N.Y. Const. art. I, § 2 and C.P.L.R. § 4102.

12. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows:

• A. On the First Cause of Action, for compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by a jury;
• B. On the Second Cause of Action, for compensatory damages as determined by a jury;
• C. On the Third Cause of Action (if pled), for judgment against Owner-Defendant under VTL § 388 and/or respondeat superior;
• D. For pre-judgment interest as permitted by law;
• E. For costs and disbursements of this action, including statutory fees; and
• F. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

13. SIGNATURE BLOCK

Dated: [CITY], New York

[__/__/____]

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ [________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME], Esq.

[LAW FIRM NAME]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

[STREET ADDRESS]

[CITY, NY ZIP]

Telephone: [NUMBER]

Email: [EMAIL]

14. VERIFICATION

STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF [COUNTY]

[PLAINTIFF NAME], being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am the Plaintiff in the within action; I have read the foregoing VERIFIED COMPLAINT and know the contents thereof; the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true.

[________________________________]

[PLAINTIFF NAME], Plaintiff

Sworn to before me this [____] day of [_______________], 20[____].

[________________________________]

Notary Public

15. NEW YORK PRACTICE NOTES

• Statute of limitations. Personal-injury actions must be commenced within three years of accrual. C.P.L.R. § 214(5). Wrongful-death actions carry a two-year period (EPTL § 5-4.1). Claims against a municipality require a Notice of Claim within 90 days (General Municipal Law § 50-e) and a one-year-and-90-day limitations period.
• Comparative negligence — modified, not pure, for this claim. CPLR § 1411(a) states New York's general PURE comparative negligence rule. Because a bicyclist struck by a motor vehicle is a "covered person" subject to Insurance Law Article 51, CPLR § 1411(b) (added by Chapter 58, Laws of 2026, Part EE, eff. 5/26/2026) governs instead: the claimant's culpable conduct BARS recovery if greater than the defendant's. Comparative fault is an affirmative defense in either case (C.P.L.R. § 1412). The defense will probe lane position, conspicuity, lighting, signal phase, and any "darting out" as part of that fault allocation.
• The cyclist's rights and duties. VTL § 1231 grants a bicyclist all the rights and subjects the bicyclist to all the duties of a vehicle driver. The driver's reciprocal duties include exercising due care to avoid colliding with a cyclist (§ 1146) and overtaking a bicycle to the left at a safe distance until safely clear (§ 1122).
• Safe passing — "safe distance," not three feet. New York's overtaking statute (VTL § 1122) requires passing a bicycle "at a safe distance until safely clear" but does not codify a specific three-foot minimum (a three-foot bill has been proposed but, as of this writing, not enacted statewide — verify current law). Rely on § 1122 together with the § 1146 due-care duty as the negligence-per-se predicates for an unsafe pass.
• NO-FAULT — a bicyclist is a covered person (key distinction from a motorcyclist). A bicyclist struck by a motor vehicle is a "covered person" (Ins. Law § 5102(j)/§ 5103). The striking vehicle's PIP pays the cyclist's basic economic loss — medical and a portion of lost wages, up to $50,000 — regardless of fault; file within 30 days against the striking vehicle's insurer (or a household auto policy / MVAIC if the vehicle is unidentified or uninsured). Because the cyclist is a covered person suing another covered person, the § 5104(a)/§ 5102(d) serious-injury threshold APPLIES to the suit for noneconomic loss — plead a § 5102(d) serious injury (a fracture independently qualifies). CONTRAST with the motorcycle template, where the rider is NOT a covered person and sues from "first dollar."
• Helmet law — no adult mandate. VTL § 1238 requires a helmet only for riders and passengers under 14. For an adult cyclist, helmet non-use is generally not comparative fault; move in limine to exclude any "helmet defense" and verify the current (inconsistent) admissibility framework.
• Owner liability. VTL § 388 imposes vicarious liability on the owner of a vehicle for the negligence of a permissive user — a key avenue to reach an owner's coverage.
• Procedure. Damages amount is not specified (C.P.L.R. § 3017(c)). Jury demand under C.P.L.R. § 4102; venue under C.P.L.R. § 503; verification under C.P.L.R. § 3020. The action is commenced by filing (C.P.L.R. § 304); service under C.P.L.R. art. 3.

16. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• McKinney's Consolidated Laws of New York (CPLR; Insurance Law; Vehicle and Traffic Law) — https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws
• C.P.L.R. § 214 (three-year limitations); § 1411(a)/(b), § 1412 (comparative negligence — modified rule under § 1411(b) for Article 51 actions eff. 5/26/2026); § 3017(c), § 3020 (pleading/verification)
• N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 1231 (traffic laws apply to bicyclists) — https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/VAT/1231
• N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 1122 (overtaking a bicycle — safe distance); § 1146 (due care to avoid colliding with a bicyclist)
• N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 1141, § 1140, § 1142, § 1143, § 1129, § 1214 (rules of the road; dooring)
• N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 388 (owner liability)
• N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 1238 (bicycle helmet — under 14)
• N.Y. Ins. Law § 5102, § 5103, § 5104 (No-Fault; "covered person"; serious-injury threshold) — https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ISC/5102
• N.Y. Pattern Jury Instructions — Civil (PJI) (Motor Vehicle; Comparative Fault; Vehicle and Traffic Law violations)

Disclaimer: This template is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. An attorney licensed in New York must review and customize this document before filing. Laws, citations, and court rules change frequently; verify all authorities before use.