In Bazile v. Rubin, 165 AD3d 793 (2d Dept. 2018), the Second Department reinstated a DHCR order that granted an owner’s application to replace part-time lobby attendants with a video security system. The decision highlights DHCR’s evolving policy with respect to replacing live security personnel with security cameras.

Substitution of Services

RSC section 2522.4(e)(3) provides that “an owner may file an application to modify or substitute services, at no change in the legal regulated rent…on the grounds that…such modification or substitution is not inconsistent with the RSL or the Code.” Over the years, owners have used this provision to seek DHCR’s permission to replace lobby attendants and doormen with security cameras. These applications became more popular with the advent of “virtual” or “cyber” doorman systems.

Substitution Denied

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]