There are certain cases that I refuse to bring on behalf of a landlord-client if the client has not properly installed cameras outside of the subject apartment. These include:

• non-primary residence cases

• illegal sublet cases

• illegal short-term sublet cases (like Airbnb)

• succession rights cases, and

• many types of nuisance cases.

Such cases are almost un-winnable without a camera.

Let us consider a non-primary residence case, for example. In the Rent Stabilized context, a tenant must reside in his or her apartment as his or her primary residence. Therefore, the first thing that a landlord needs to prove in a non-primary residence case is that the tenant is NOT there. How could a landlord prove that the tenant is not there? The following is a sample colloquy between a lawyer and a landlord-client on this topic.

A picture (or a video) is worth a thousand words, or a thousand guesses and speculations.

Cameras are cheaper than legal fees. If a landlord is not willing to pay for cameras, he is not going to be willing to pay legal fees for a protracted trial that landlord is likely to lose.

Cameras should be set up by a professional licensed private investigations and/or security firm. The more experience the company has with this type of work, the better.

First, the camera must be set up so that it does NOT look into the tenant’s apartment when the door is opened, thus invading tenant’s privacy. See more about that below.

The camera must be set up so that it gets a clear view of the subject apartment, but not so that multiple apartments are under surveillance, because then there will be a lot of unnecessary footage to review.

The camera should be motion activated; otherwise, it will be difficult to review all the footage.

Landlord’s counsel needs to work closely with the surveillance camera technologists to streamline both the technical and legal process involved with utilizing cameras, or the evidence obtained from the cameras might not be admissible. A videotape must be “authenticated” before it can be used as evidence in a court proceeding. Testimony from someone who has knowledge of the circumstances and who actually reviewed the footage is usually sufficient.

I strongly prefer that the same person:

• install the camera;

• maintain the camera (i.e. changes its batteries);

• retrieves the data card from the camera and take it to where it will be stored;

• superintend the storage system;

• review the footage; and

• produces a detailed log of what each incident reveals.

This person is your witness in court!

Landlord’s counsel can see why attending to the details of this type of thing BEFORE a case gets started is vital to bringing a healthy case. Tenant’s counsel can also see how useful it is when landlord’s counsel leaves this important evidentiary work unattended to until trial.

Courts in New York have ruled that tenants have an expectation of privacy inside their apartment behind the closed entry door. Otero v. Houston Street Owners Corp., 2012 WL 692037 (Sup. Ct. NY. Co.); see also People v. Mercado, 68 N.Y.2d 874 (1986) (“Once the door is closed, an individual is entitled to assume that while inside he or she will not be viewed by others”).

On the other hand, New York courts have found that residents in multi-family buildings lack a reasonable expectation of privacy in the building’s common areas, such as lobbies, stairwells and hallways because it is accessible to other persons.  People v. Funches, 89 N.Y.2d 1005, 1007 (1997).