Landlord Gets MCI Rent Hike for TV/Security System

The DRA granted landlord's MCI rent hike application based on the installation of a TV/security system. Tenant appealed and lost. Tenant claimed that the new system wasn't necessary to the operation, preservation, and maintenance of the building, that there were hazardous "C" violations against the building barring any MCI increase, and that the system covered only the lobby and elevator, not the building's exterior and exits, parking lot, stairwells, residence floors, and grounds. Landlord also had fired seven of the building's 12 security guards.
The DHCR pointed out that, to qualify, the TV/security system must be monitored 24 hours per day, and there must be visual capacity in each apartment and a functioning intercom system. Monitoring of other areas wasn't required. The fact that the installation may reduce other operating expenses also didn't matter. Landlord had installed 15 security cameras, including on building exteriors, in vestibules, lobbies, mailbox area, elevator cabs, roofs, stairs, and laundry room. If the number of security guards was reduced, tenants could file a complaint based on a decrease of required services. But the DHCR had issued a recent order finding that the current schedule of eight guards on patrol seven days a week wasn't a reduction in services. In addition, tenant hadn't raised any claim about "C" violations before the DRA and couldn't do so for the first time in her PAR. The "C" violations cited by tenant were, in any case, issued after the DRA granted the MCI rent hike.

620 Lenox Avenue: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. XB41022RT (8/24/11) [4-pg. doc.]