Motorcycle Accident Complaint

MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENT COMPLAINT — NEW YORK

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Parties
3. Jurisdiction and Venue
4. Relevant Statutory Framework (No-Fault Exemption for Motorcyclists)
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 (MOTORCYCLE 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 motorcycle 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. RELEVANT STATUTORY FRAMEWORK (No-Fault Exemption for Motorcyclists)

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 operating and/or occupying a motorcycle. Under N.Y. Insurance Law § 5102(f), the term "motor vehicle" for purposes of the No-Fault Law (Ins. Law art. 51) does not include a motorcycle, and under Ins. Law § 5103(a)(1) the occupants of a motorcycle are not entitled to first-party (no-fault) benefits.

9. Because Plaintiff is therefore not a "covered person" within the meaning of the No-Fault Law, the "serious injury" threshold of N.Y. Insurance Law § 5104(a) and § 5102(d) does not apply to Plaintiff. Plaintiff may maintain this action and recover all damages, including damages for noneconomic loss (pain and suffering), from the first dollar of loss, without pleading or proving a "serious injury."

5. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS (Accident Facts)

10. On [__/__/____] at approximately [TIME], Plaintiff was lawfully operating a [YEAR, MAKE, MODEL, PLATE NO.] motorcycle ("Plaintiff's Motorcycle") traveling [DIRECTION] on [ROADWAY] at or near [INTERSECTION / MILE MARKER], in [CITY/TOWN], County of [COUNTY], State of New York (the "Collision").

11. 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.

12. Traffic, lighting, and weather conditions were [describe — e.g., clear, dry, daylight], and Plaintiff's Motorcycle headlamp was illuminated and operating.

13. 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., turned left across Plaintiff's path of travel; failed to yield the right-of-way at the intersection; changed lanes into the lane occupied by Plaintiff's Motorcycle; followed Plaintiff's Motorcycle too closely and struck it from the rear; opened a vehicle door into Plaintiff's path].

14. Although Plaintiff's Motorcycle was plainly visible, Driver-Defendant "looked but failed to see" Plaintiff's approaching motorcycle, misjudged its speed and distance, and/or failed to keep a proper lookout for motorcycles lawfully sharing the roadway.

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

16. As a direct and proximate result of the Collision, Plaintiff was thrown from the motorcycle 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].

17. Because a motorcyclist lacks the structural protection, restraint systems, and crumple zones of an enclosed vehicle, the forces of the Collision caused Plaintiff to suffer injuries materially more severe than those typically sustained by occupants of passenger vehicles.

18. 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)

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

20. 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, and to keep a proper lookout for motorcyclists lawfully sharing the roadway.

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

• Failing to keep a proper and careful lookout for Plaintiff's plainly visible motorcycle;
• Failing to yield the right-of-way to Plaintiff's oncoming or approaching motorcycle;
• Turning left across the path of Plaintiff's oncoming motorcycle when it was unsafe to do so;
• Making an unsafe lane change into the lane occupied by Plaintiff's motorcycle;
• Following Plaintiff's motorcycle 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.

22. 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)

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

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

• 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 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 § 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 unless reasonably safe ("dooring").

25. 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.

26. 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)

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

28. 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.

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

30. 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.

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

9. DAMAGES

32. 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;
• Future medical and life care — anticipated surgeries, therapy, assistive devices, 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 motorcycle, riding gear, helmet, and personal effects, including loss of use and diminution in value.

33. No statutory cap limits Plaintiff's damages under current New York law.

34. 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

35. Any culpable conduct attributable to Plaintiff, including comparative fault, is governed by N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1411(a) and shall diminish the recovery only in proportion to such fault, without barring recovery.

36. Plaintiff has complied with, or will comply with, all conditions precedent applicable to any uninsured/underinsured/supplementary uninsured motorist claim and reserves all rights against the applicable carrier.

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.
• PURE comparative negligence continues to apply. C.P.L.R. § 1411(a) reduces recovery in proportion to the plaintiff's culpable conduct but never bars it; comparative fault is an affirmative defense (C.P.L.R. § 1412). The modified, fault-can-bar-recovery rule of CPLR § 1411(b) (eff. 5/26/2026) applies only to actions subject to Insurance Law Article 51, and a motorcyclist is not a "covered person" under Article 51 — so § 1411(a)'s pure rule continues to govern a motorcyclist's claim.
• MOTORCYCLE / NO-FAULT EXEMPTION (the central distinction). Motorcycles are excluded from the No-Fault Law: Ins. Law § 5102(f) ("motor vehicle" excludes a motorcycle); § 5103(a)(1) (no first-party benefits to motorcycle occupants). A motorcyclist is not a "covered person," so the § 5104(a)/§ 5102(d) serious-injury threshold does not apply — the rider sues from first dollar for all damages, including pain and suffering, and need not plead or prove a serious injury. The rider also receives no automobile PIP for the motorcycle.
• Helmet law. VTL § 381(6) requires an approved helmet for all motorcycle operators and passengers (universal). Confirm helmet use; if unhelmeted, anticipate mitigation/avoidable-consequences arguments on the head-injury damages component (not a liability bar).
• 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 under the commencement-by-filing system (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, § 1412 (comparative negligence); § 3017(c), § 3020 (pleading/verification)
• N.Y. Ins. Law § 5102 (definitions; "motor vehicle" excludes motorcycle) — https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ISC/5102
• N.Y. Ins. Law § 5103 (first-party benefits; motorcycle exclusion) — https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ISC/5103
• N.Y. Ins. Law § 5104 (threshold for non-economic loss) — https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ISC/5104
• N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 1141 (left turn) — https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/VAT/1141
• N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 1140, § 1142, § 1129, § 1214 (rules of the road; dooring)
• N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 388 (owner liability)
• N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 381(6) (motorcycle protective helmet)
• 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.