DHCR Reasonably Ruled Elimination of Elevator Operators Would Reduce Required Services

Landlord filed an Article 78 court appeal of a DHCR decision that denied permission to modify building-wide services for rent-regulated tenants in its building, by eliminating three elevator operators with shifts running from 4 p.m. to 12 a.m., and replacing them with one employee in the hallway for that time period. The DHCR had found landlord's characterization of the agency's prior rulings inaccurate. In a prior case, an owner proposed to replace lobby attendants with a surveillance system. In this case, landlord wished to replace three elevator operators with one "hall person" and argued that the existing security system would provide the same level of security. But the DHCR found that landlord's plan would lower the level of security in the building, and wasn't an adequate substitute. The presence of elevator operators in this building, which contained 17 floors and 150 apartments, provided security for the tenants, especially between the peak hours of 4 p.m. and 12 a.m. 

The court denied landlord's appeal. Landlord appealed further and lost. The Appeals Court determined that the DHCR's decision had a rational basis, and wasn't arbitrary and capricious. The DHCR's ruling was supported by tenant submissions attesting to the importance of the three elevator operators to the vertical security of the building during evening hours of high traffic. The DHCR had broad discretion to evaluate "pertinent factual data" on an application to modify required services. The DHCR also sufficiently distinguished a prior case where it permitted a landlord to replace four elevator operators with two lobby runners. In the prior case, the landlord maintained the same level of security by adding not just the lobby runners but also installing new surveillance cameras to important common areas of the building. But in this case, where the building already had security cameras, landlord didn't supplement the single hall person with any additional substitute for security. The DHCR found that this resulted in an overall "decrease" in security and services. 

Matter of 350 Cent. Park W Assoc. LLC v. DHCR: 2024 NY Slip Op (App. Div. 1 Dept.; 5/14/24; Singh, JP, Moulton, Mendez, Rosado, Michael, JJ)