'Virtual Doorman' Is Inadequate Substitute Service

Landlord asked the DHCR for permission to replace the building doorman with a virtual doorman service. The DRA ruled against landlord, finding that the proposed change wasn't an adequate substitute service. Landlord appealed, claiming that the doorman's sole duties were to accept packages and monitor building traffic and that an electronic system could provide this service.
The DHCR ruled against landlord. The DRA correctly found that the live doorman also acted as a deterrent to crime, and that this was part of the doorman's duties. As tenants pointed out in their objection to the proposed change, there were incidents where the doorman prevented nonresidents from entering the building or assisted tenants who were accosted while entering or leaving the building. The doorman's station also could be seen from outside the building, and the doorman could observe what was happening in various areas by a monitor at the desk. Landlord also didn't sufficiently explain how the proposed remote system would provide the same level of security and was subject to breakdowns or malfunctions.

191 Saint Nicholas Avenue: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. VK410045RO (7/30/08) [2-pg. doc.]