Scott Mollen

Virtual Trials—Landlord-Tenant—Motion To Stay Proceedings Denied—Parties Ordered To Proceed to a Virtual Trial—Virtual Trial Will Not Violate Respondents' Due Process Rights—Respondent Claimed That She Had a Smartphone but Lacked Computer or Internet Connection at Home—Respondents Asserted Virtual Trial Will Be Riddled with So Many Complications and Delays, It Will "Endanger Their Right to a Fair Trial"—Court Noted "The Presumption That the Modern Practice of Law Should Readily Include a Computer and Internet Access Does Not Hold for Litigants, Especially Those of Limited Financial Means"

This decision involved a motion to stay a trial of a non-payment proceeding which had been commenced in 2017. Respondents had counterclaimed for rent overcharge.

Following eight adjournments, including a six-month period for discovery, the case had been sent to a trial part in early March. A conference had been cancelled due to the pandemic lockdown on March 17, 2020. The proceeding had been "effectively stayed until the Chief Administrative Judge issued" an order on Aug. 13, 2020, which lifted the stay on residential eviction matters commenced prior to March 17, 2020. A virtual pre-trial conference lasted approximately three hours due to a party appearing through her smartphone and the "challenge of hearing one another over the interpreter, as well as technical difficulties and off-the-record attorney/client discussions regarding settlement…."

Thereafter, a virtual trial was scheduled to proceed on Oct. 13, 2020. However, a respondent moved to adjourn the trial date for health-related issues and the court granted such request. Although the virtual trial was then scheduled for Nov. 24, 2020 and Dec. 2, 2020, the respondents moved for an "indefinite stay of the proceedings pursuant to CPLR §2201."