When the courtroom shifted to the computer screen, the law itself didn’t change, but apart from that, nearly everything else did. Housing Court was already known for how intense, busy, and important it was for both landlords and renters, but now it had to take part in a digital experiment. Cases that used to happen on busy calendars and in busy hallways started to happen through video feeds, muted microphones, and electronic files all of a sudden.
For litigators, judges, landlords, and tenants alike, the shift to virtual proceedings introduced more than inconvenience. It changed the strategy and timelines and also revealed efficiencies and vulnerabilities in the system. Although the law is written on the books, the realities of applying it through a digital lens today are still being defined.
Few know these realities as well as Nativ Winiarsky, a senior litigator and partner at Kucker Marino Winiarsky & Bittens LLP, who has argued cases before Housing Court in both its traditional and virtual forms. He stresses that understanding virtual Housing Court needs more than just learning how to use new technology. This is based on years of high-stakes landlord-tenant litigation. There needs to be a new way of thinking about how representation, planning, and due process work in a courtroom with a screen.
One of the earliest things that virtual Housing Court promised was access. Surely, in theory, video conferencing could possibly eliminate travel barriers and streamline participation. For some litigants, that promise has been realized. Attendance rates in certain dockets improved when tenants and landlords alike could log in remotely.
However, Nativ Winiarsky points out that not everyone has the same level of access to technology. Different parts of New York City have very different levels of reliable internet, quiet places, and knowledge of digital platforms. A proceeding may be formally open, but it may be hard for a participant to use if they are having trouble connecting or speaking the language. This creates a paradox: based on the situation, virtual proceedings can both make access more open and make inequality worse.
Litigation has always relied on presence - the ability of an attorney to command attention, cross-examine, and respond dynamically in court. That presence is changed by virtual procedures. Body language can only be shown on a square on a screen, technical problems can happen during cross-examination, and judges may not be able to see the defendants physically when judging their trustworthiness.
Nativ Winiarsky stresses that effective advocacy in virtual Housing Court demands recalibrating these dynamics. Lawyers need to know not only what they will say but also how they will communicate. They have to plan for interruptions, make sure that digital entries are clear, and change how they ask questions to work with a format that often makes subtleties less noticeable. In court, skills that used to depend on being able to act quickly and physically now depend on being able to be precise in a digital frame.
If traditional Housing Court rewarded meticulous documentation, virtual proceedings elevate that requirement even further. With fewer opportunities for in-person clarification, filings and exhibits must be unambiguous, complete, and easily navigable in electronic form.
For Nativ Winiarsky, this shift underscores the need for strategic preparation. When judges and the other side's lawyers look at documents online, exhibits that aren't organized well or submissions that aren't clear end up costing more. Digital records, unlike paper files, can be shared right away. This makes mistakes easier to see and makes good paperwork an even bigger plus.
Settlement has always been a crucial part of the Housing Court, but that has also changed under virtual circumstances. Informal talks in the halls, which used to happen a lot before or after hearings, don't happen as much in digital proceedings. Without those face-to-face meetings, settlement talks have become more organized and, in some cases, less open to change.
Nativ Winiarsky observes that while some attorneys appreciate the streamlined nature of scheduled virtual conferences, others find that the absence of organic, face-to-face discussions can stall resolutions. For property owners, this means that they need to plan their settlements more carefully and have their strategies and offers ready ahead of time, rather than negotiating on the spot at the courts.
It is unlikely that Housing Court will ever return entirely to its pre-pandemic form. Virtual proceedings, once introduced, have proven too convenient in certain respects to be abandoned. Instead, the future is likely to be hybrid - a mix of in-person and digital hearings tailored to case type and circumstance.
Nativ Winiarsky notes that for property owners and their counsel, preparation for this hybrid future is essential. Advocacy that works will need to be able to change its legal strategy, use digital tools, and stay alert to following the rules of due process. What’s certain is that Housing Court is bound to change and adapt.
The law may remain grounded in precedent, but its practice adapts with circumstance. And in the evolving world of landlord-tenant litigation, the realities of virtual Housing Court remind us that even the most traditional institutions must find their footing in a digital age.
