Landlord Provided Adequate Substitute for Elevator Operators

(Decision submitted by Jeffrey R. Metz of the Manhattan law firm of Borah Goldstein Altschuler & Schwartz, P.C., attorneys for the landlord.) Landlord applied to DHCR for permission to replace elevator operators in the building complex with 24-hour doormen and concierge service, closed-circuit television monitoring, roving security patrols, new alarm and intercom systems, and a package delivery room. The DHCR ruled for landlord. Tenants appealed, claiming that the elevator operators were a required base-date service under rent stabilization. The court and appeals court ruled against tenants. DHCR's decision that the proposed change in service was an ``adequate substitute'' was reasonable since the building complex contained both rent-controlled and rent-stabilized apartments. The fact that landlord's 1953 proposal to change the elevator operator service was denied didn't bar landlord's new, vastly different proposal over 40 years later.

Various Tenants v. DHCR: NYLJ, p. 26, col. 4 (3/17/97) (App. Div. 1 Dept.; Milonas, JP, Ellerin, Wallach, Nardelli, JJ)