Proposed Video Surveillance System Wasn't Adequate Substitute for Second Doorman

Landlord asked the DHCR for permission to modify doorman services at two adjoining addresses. Landlord sought to eliminate one of its two doormen and add a video security system and intercom.

The DRA ruled against landlord, who appealed and lost. Landlord claimed that the premises was one building with two entrances and that its proposed 24/7 surveillance system would be an adequate substitute for the second doorman. But the DHCR found that there were two buildings and that it wasn't practical for one doorman to perform the duties for all tenants at both buildings simultaneously. Also, each doorman opened the door for tenants, collected packages, and monitored all individuals entering and exiting the buildings. Landlord didn't show that these services could be performed by other building staff. The elimination of one doorman would be a reduction in the amount of non-security services that would be covered by a 24/7 surveillance system. Landlord's proposed substitution wouldn't provide an equivalent level of the same type of service and/or security.

Thor-Go 120-125 Riverside LLC: DHCR Adm. Rev. Docket No. JQ430007RO (12/20/22)[3-pg. document]