DHCR Approves Replacement of Entry Keys with Key Fob System, with Conditions

Landlord asked the DHCR for permission to replace the building’s existing key entry system with an electronic key fob or key card entry. Some tenants objected, claiming that they preferred metal keys for reasons of safety and convenience. There was no doorman on site and the building super lived three blocks away. The DRA ruled for landlord at no change to the legal rents. The DRA found that the proposed service modification was an adequate substitution of services and not inconsistent with the rent stabilization and rent control laws.

The DRA set conditions: (1) the building must still be accessed by metal keys in the event of emergency; (2) the system could record entrances, but not departures; (3) the system would be monitored by a security camera system; (4) during office hours, management would assist tenants with access if needed and during off-hours, tenants would have a number to contact the super; (5) management would accommodate religious observers who couldn’t operate electronic devices on the Sabbath; (6) the system must have a 48-hour battery backup in case of power outage; (7) tenants would receive key fobs based on file information, to be verified not more than once a year; (8) occupants, including children, would receive free key fobs, and tenants could also get up to four free key fobs for guests or employees; (9) key fob replacement costs couldn’t exceed $25; (10) each person who wasn’t a minor would sit for a photograph to be electronically associated with the key fob; (11) individuals receiving key fobs must provide proof of identity, but landlord couldn’t record this information; (12) landlord couldn’t request or retain the Social Security number of more than one tenant or occupant for an apartment; (13) tenant’s name, address, and photo wouldn’t be listed on the key fob; and (14) no additional equipment would be installed in tenants’ apartments.

Some tenants appealed on a number of grounds, including that the system was installed prior to DHCR approval, the recording of entrances was an invasion of privacy, it was discriminatory to give metal keys to Sabbath observers only, and tenants shouldn’t have to give landlord any information not stated in their leases.

The DHCR ruled against tenants. There was no proof that landlord implemented the keyless entry system prior to DHCR approval. Tenants’ claim that landlord’s provisions for emergencies was inadequate was speculative. The recording of entrances only didn’t invade privacy and was consistent with prior DHCR rulings. The discrimination claim didn’t represent a violation of the rent stabilization law or code. It also wasn’t unreasonable to require tenants to submit a photograph. 

Court: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. DR430034RT (7/29/16) [6-pg. doc.]