Remote Legal Practice During COVID-19: How New York No-Fault Litigation Adapted

This is Jason’s March 28, 2020 dispatch from the first weeks of the pandemic shutdown. It records the disruption to a document-heavy no-fault practice. The courthouse restrictions described in it are historical, not today’s filing rules, and the original statement that filing papers was “illegal” needs the qualification below.

Historical note: The March 2020 filing restrictions concerned nonessential matters under AO/78/20, with essential-matter exceptions. Today’s Rule 202.12 addresses current preliminary-conference procedure; this dispatch is not current filing advice.

Last reviewed: September 2026. Original publication date retained.

What the March 2020 order restricted

Administrative Order AO/78/20, dated March 22, 2020, directed courts and county clerks not to accept filings in matters outside its essential-matters list. The restriction covered both paper and electronic filings. The list included specified emergency proceedings and a category for other matters a court deemed essential.

The order did not say that every filing was a crime, that no court could act, or that every legal task had to stop. Jason’s original wording describes the frustration of that week; it should not be read as the operative legal standard. Nor should a present-day reader infer that the March restriction remained unchanged throughout the pandemic.

That distinction matters when reconstructing an old case. A court filing, an exchange between counsel and a submission to a different forum are separate events. Each event needs to be checked against the rule that governed it at the time.

Why arbitration appeared in the original dispatch

Insurance Law § 5106(b) provides a claimant an arbitration option for the covered no-fault disputes described there. Jason’s March observation was that arbitration submissions could continue because the work he described was paperless and did not require personal appearances for the submission itself.

That observation is not proof that every arbitration hearing occurred on schedule in March 2020, that every dispute could be resolved on documents alone, or that arbitration bypassed every pandemic restriction. This note does not offer an operational history of AAA’s entire system.

The point is narrower and still useful: the same claim can generate documents for different processes. Keep a record of what was submitted, where, under which procedure and with what confirmation. An arbitration upload should not be confused with service of motion papers in court or a verification response sent to the insurer.

What a remote file must preserve

No-fault disputes often turn on claim forms, request letters, responses and proof of transmission. Remote access makes those records easier to review together, but does not establish their evidentiary foundation.

Sound Shore Medical Center turned on an earlier hospital form that supported the verification timeline. The case illustrates why preserving only the newest bill can leave an incomplete chronology.

Darlington Medical Diagnostics concerns proof that requests were received. Pomona Medical Diagnostic concerns whether a response was shown to have been mailed. A remote worker’s ability to open a PDF does not itself answer either question.

For a working file, keep the original record, its attachments and the available transmission evidence together. Identify the person who knows the process used at the time. If a document was later scanned, retain the distinction between its creation, mailing, receipt and scanning dates. A scan timestamp should not silently replace the date of a different event.

Remote appearances today depend on the proceeding

The original hope for virtual hearings belongs to March 2020. Current Uniform Rule 202.12, governing preliminary conferences within its Supreme and County Court scope, expressly provides for virtual conferences in specified circumstances and court discretion over how other conferences proceed.

Remote procedure is now part of those rules, but its availability for another court or type of proceeding needs a separate check. Check the particular court, part, notice and applicable order. This historical dispatch cannot supply today’s appearance instructions.

The practical preparation is still concrete: confirm the required format, make exhibits available in the form the proceeding requires, and ensure the person appearing can explain the claim file. Technical access and substantive preparation are different tasks.

Pandemic context is not a universal deadline answer

An old claim may require examination of orders, rules and correspondence in effect at particular dates. This note does not calculate a pandemic toll for any claim or say that court-filing restrictions suspended every insurer verification deadline.

The Burke post-EUO history shows why the later procedural record matters: the transcript, documentary requests, objections and subsequent appellate decisions each affect the analysis. The current verification guide separates older case notes from the 2026 denial-timing development.

Jason’s dispatch is retained for its firsthand account of working through a disruption. The linked cases supply the legal detail; the archive entry should not be stretched into a present-day deadline or technology guide.

Original commentary preserved from the archive

I start by stating the obvious: None us in this profession are generally “essential workers”. We at best redistribute wealth. What does that mean to you? It means getting behind the laptop, watching Cuomo at 11:30 and DJT at 5:15 or 5:45 PM. For some, it is doing arbitration submissions, which should continue due to the paperless and lack of personal appearances necessary to keep that system going.

For others, it is finishing discovery demands and responding to motions, although it is now illegal to file to any papers. And yet for others, it is putting deals together and drafting contracts. But, the work is all done in seeming isolation.

No-Fault involves small bills and tons of redundancy. Sometimes, there is some very interesting or novel issues within the minutia. I for one am always searching for it. But, with a closed judicial system and plenty of people laid off, this has become a tough road to navigate.

I for one look forward to virtual hearings, virtual court appearances and Skype trials. Robert Frost told us: ” Two roads diverged in a wood, and I— I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference. “

Connect to the Encyclopedia

• Verification and the 120-day rule: current guide and case directory
• Sound Shore: the earlier hospital form and the request timeline
• Burke: post-EUO documents and later appellate decisions
• Darlington: a conclusory denial of receiving verification
• Pomona: inadequate proof that a verification response was mailed

For review of a particular claim or verification dispute, contact the firm. Please use the initial message to describe the issue without sending medical records or other sensitive documents.