Landlord Can Replace Lobby Attendant with Electronic Surveillance

LVT Number: #22203

Landlord asked the DHCR for permission to substitute an electronic entry system, surveillance cameras, roof door alarms, improved intercom system, and enhanced lighting for the existing lobby attendant in a rent-stabilized building. The DRA ruled for landlord, finding the proposed system was an adequate substitute for the lobby attendant. Tenants appealed. They claimed that security would be reduced by these changes. The DHCR ruled against tenants.

Landlord asked the DHCR for permission to substitute an electronic entry system, surveillance cameras, roof door alarms, improved intercom system, and enhanced lighting for the existing lobby attendant in a rent-stabilized building. The DRA ruled for landlord, finding the proposed system was an adequate substitute for the lobby attendant. Tenants appealed. They claimed that security would be reduced by these changes. The DHCR ruled against tenants. Landlord wasn't proposing only a video surveillance system, but a number of other additional security measures, and the DRA considered the combined effect. While tenants claimed that they could be trapped by intruders in stairways, new cameras would monitor the building's entrances, vestibule, elevator area, basement, hallways, parking areas, and exterior grounds. There would also be an electronic entry system.

87-50 167th Street: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. UD110067RT (8/5/09) [3-pg. doc.]

Downloads

UD110067RT.pdf110.31 KB