Proposed Substitution of Security Service Inadequate

Landlord asked the DHCR for permission to modify a required building service. Landlord proposed to eliminate the night security guard position, from midnight to 8:00 a.m., and install a new video surveillance system consisting of 12 cameras placed throughout the building and monitored by the front desk clerk who was on duty 24 hours a day. The system would also have computerized archival backup. The DRA ruled for landlord.
Tenants appealed, claiming that the proposed video surveillance system wasn't an adequate replacement for the role and quality of service performed by the night security guard. For 30 years, the guard did hourly patrols through the entire building and clocked in his rounds on each floor. Tenants also claimed there weren't enough proposed cameras to completely monitor the hallways on all 16 floors, stairs, fire escape, basement, laundry room, gym, two elevators, public area, and entrances. The security guard also responded to and reported emergencies. The security guard also covered for the desk clerk when the clerk took breaks, and landlord didn't have evening staff to otherwise cover for the desk clerk.
The DHCR ruled for tenants and revoked permission to landlord to change the security service. Landlord's original application to the DRA stated that cameras would be placed on each of the tenant floors of the building. But in response to questions from the DRA for more details, landlord revised its proposal. The revised proposal stated that 12 cameras would be installed to monitor roofs, public spaces, and entrances, but that cameras wouldn't be installed on the apartment floors. The revised proposal wasn't an adequate substitute for the night security guard, since it didn't include installation of cameras on all tenant floors.

166 West 75th Street: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. VC430080RT (10/9/08) [4-pg. doc.]