Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing no-fault coverage, with 271 published articles analyzing no-fault 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.
Modern technology has revolutionized many aspects of legal practice, including how depositions are conducted in New York no-fault insurance cases. When plaintiffs face genuine hardships that prevent them from traveling to New York for their Examination Before Trial (EBT), courts have shown flexibility in accommodating these situations through remote video conferencing.
The use of platforms like Skype for depositions represents a practical solution that balances the needs of all parties while ensuring the litigation process can move forward efficiently. This approach is particularly valuable in no-fault cases, where examinations under oath and other procedural requirements are essential components of the claims process.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Yu Hui Chen v Chen Li Zhi, 2013 NY Slip Op 05815 (2d Dept. 2013)
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
“On a prior appeal, this Court permitted the plaintiff’s deposition to be conducted by remote electronic means (see Yu Hui Chen v Chen Li Zhi, 81 AD3d 818). By directing that the plaintiff’s deposition be conducted in this manner, this Court was able to reasonably accommodate the plaintiff’s predicament of not being able to travel to New York for the deposition. In light of our determination on that prior appeal, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s cross motion which was, in effect, for a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103(a) to the extent of directing that his deposition be conducted by the use of “Skype” or other comparable video-conferencing format.”
Skype has many uses for sure, one of which is to conduct EBTs of those who are in another state or in another part of this state.
Key Takeaway
Courts recognize that legitimate travel difficulties should not prevent depositions from proceeding. Remote video conferencing offers a reasonable accommodation that allows the discovery process to continue while respecting plaintiffs’ circumstances. This flexibility in procedural matters demonstrates the courts’ practical approach to modern litigation challenges.
Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2013 post, New York courts have developed more comprehensive guidelines for remote depositions, particularly following expanded use during the COVID-19 pandemic. CPLR provisions and court rules governing electronic depositions may have been updated with specific procedural requirements, technology standards, and notice provisions that differ from the flexible approach described in the original Chen decision.
Related Articles
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York's no-fault insurance system, established under Insurance Law Article 51, is one of the most complex insurance frameworks in the country. Every motorist must carry Personal Injury Protection coverage that pays medical expenses and lost wages regardless of fault, up to $50,000 per person.
But insurers routinely deny valid claims using peer reviews, EUO scheduling tactics, fee schedule reductions, and coverage defenses. The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum has handled over 100,000 no-fault cases since 2002 — from initial claim submissions through arbitration before the American Arbitration Association, trials in Civil Court and Supreme Court, and appeals to the Appellate Term and Appellate Division. Jason Tenenbaum is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.
His 2,353+ published legal articles on no-fault practice are cited by attorneys throughout New York. Whether you are dealing with a medical necessity denial, an EUO no-show defense, a fee schedule dispute, or a coverage question, this article provides the kind of detailed case-law analysis that helps practitioners and claimants understand exactly where the law stands.
About This Topic
New York No-Fault Insurance Law
New York's no-fault insurance system requires every driver to carry Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage that pays medical expenses and lost wages regardless of who caused the accident. But insurers routinely deny, delay, and underpay valid claims — using peer reviews, IME no-shows, and fee schedule defenses to avoid paying providers and injured claimants. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has litigated thousands of no-fault arbitrations and court cases since 2002.
271 published articles in No-Fault
Keep Reading
More No-Fault Analysis
Car Accident Recorded Statement in New York: Should You Give One?
The at-fault driver's adjuster wants a recorded statement within days of a New York car accident — and that call is designed to weaken your case.
Apr 5, 2026
Who Pays Car Accident Medical Bills in New York? A Step-by-Step Guide
New York no-fault PIP, primary health insurance, Medicaid/Medicare, and litigation liens — the full payment ladder for car-accident medical bills.
Apr 5, 2026
How Insurance Companies Use Colossus Software to Undervalue Your Injury Claim
Insurance companies use Colossus software to lowball your injury claim. Learn how this system works and how a Long Island attorney can fight back.
Feb 18, 2026
CPLR 3212(a) Timeliness: A Summary Judgment Motion Is Made When Served, Not When Filed
CPLR 3212(a) deadlines turn on service, not filing. BSS Medical v Metropolitan holds a mailed summary judgment motion timely — and why the rule needs updating.
Feb 18, 2022
Another Statute of limitations
New York no-fault insurance statute of limitations analysis: when causes of action accrue and collateral estoppel defense strategies in medical provider cases.
Feb 1, 2020
Maybe we have come along way and maybe we have not?
Legal analysis of People v Williams case examining how medical advances in HIV treatment affected criminal charges, reflecting broader changes in legal standards over time.
Nov 18, 2013Was this article helpful?
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 no-fault 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.
