Landlord Can't Refuse to Accept Packages Based on Size and Electronic Content

Tenant complained to the DHCR of a reduction in building-wide services, claiming that in 2014 landlord verbally directed the concierge/doorman to stop accepting package deliveries containing electronics notwithstanding the lobby staff's longstanding practice of signing for all package deliveries on behalf of building tenants. Landlord argued that its acceptance of packages was discretionary and that the DHCR had previously permitted owners to place pre-conditions on certain deliveries without rent reduction.

The DRA ruled against tenant in 2016, finding that package delivery acceptance was maintained at the building with the exception of large packages containing electronics, that such deliveries were infrequent, and that tenant could make his own arrangements for receipt at the apartment.

Tenant appealed to the DHCR and lost, then filed an Article 78 court appeal. The DHCR agreed to take the case back for further review. The DHCR again denied tenant's PAR, this time finding that landlord's policy concerning large packages containing electronics was de minimis. But the DHCR also ruled, in response to a second, related PAR by tenant, that landlord's decision to accept only packages delivered by major carriers who used tracking numbers, to the exclusion of all other delivery sources, was unreasonable and rose to the level of a reduction in services.

Tenant filed a second Article 78 court appeal and won. The court found that the two PAR decisions were inconsistent since the DHCR ruled in one that there was no reduction in required services but in the other that there was a de minimis reduction in required services. The court also found the DHCR's decision that landlord needed to accept only packages with tracking numbers unreasonable.

The cases were sent back to the DHCR, who then ruled for tenant. Holding mail and packages for tenants wasn't merely an accommodation since building staff maintained a logbook where deliveries and tracking numbers were recorded. There also was no proof of any restrictions with respect to what items couldn't be accepted at the time tenant signed his vacancy lease. And landlord's new policy concerning large packages containing electronics wasn't de minimis since it was part of a service provided to tenant at the time he moved into the building. 

Desser: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket Nos. IS410002RP, FW410007RP, ES410033RT, EX410030RT (1/12/21) [7-pg. doc.]