Can An Apartment Building Super Block a Camera Install?

Here's a question recently posed to Ken Kirschenbaum, a lawyer known for his dealings with alarm system law:

Q: "My friend he lives in a rental apartment building in Jackson Heights, Queens in NYC. He said his building finished installing new CCTV camera outside of the building with cables running in the conduits. But his super is taking down all the conduits outside of the building because this is a building violation. They have to get the cables inside the wall not outside the wall. Is it true?"

His response is somewhat surprising (emphasis is ours):

A: "I regularly get inquiries from people not in the alarm industry about alarm questions. My usual response is either no response [in this case I didn't respond to the inquiry] or I let the inquiring party know that I represent the alarm industry and I don't provide free advice to anyone not in the alarm industry or provide any advice adverse to the alarm industry. I thought this inquiry worthy for distribution and discussion.

Unfortunately, I don't know the answer. I suppose the alarm company who installed the cameras and the conduits should have known before doing the installation. So, question is, are the exposed outside conduits a building violation? Anyone know?

Cameras in this building should have been installed only after a Commercial All in One was signed by the building owner. While that contract does provide that the alarm company is not liable for false alarm fines, building violations are another matter. If the alarm company designed the system with equipment or material that violated building codes then the contract better provide that the subscriber was warned and elected to take the risk, presumably because complying with building codes was more expensive.

Also be careful when not complying with building codes. It may be that this exposed conduit for camera feed is not something that is inherently harmful and likely to cause damage or injury, but other code violation may very well fit that category. That would increase your liability exposure significantly and the alarm contract is not likely to protect you."

First, his basic response is that he is unsure if the Building Supervisor can remove equipment but says it is the installer's responsibility to make sure all relevant codes are recognized. No citation of the specific 'no conduit' code at the crux of this issue, so I am not sure if this is a legit claim based on safety concerns or just cosmetic objections.

Kirschenbaum goes on to mention the installer bears culpability if codes/building code violations are found and corrective action (damages?) are a factor.

Do you agree? As an installer, do you accept this interpretation? Can building supers tear down your systems if they do not think it satisfies code?

Login to read this IPVM discussion.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts unique testing and research funded by member's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.

********, ** ****** *** * ******** **** ******** ***** '** conduit ** ******* ** *********', *** ** ****.

**** *** **** ** ******* ******?

*** ******** *** ********* ****** ******:

***.** **** *********.

*** *** ** ********** *********** ****** *** ******** ***** ** permitted:

(*) ********* ****** *****, ******, *** ******** ***** *** *****, floors, *** ******** ******* * ******* ******* ** ******** ***** has ** ***** * * **** ****** ****** ** ********** in ******** ** ****-***** **********.

(*) ** ********* ******* ** ****** ********* ********** ** ******* in ***.* *** ***** ******* ** ********* *** ***** *** materials *** ************ ********.

(*) ** *********, ***, *** **** ********* *** ********** ** 362.12. (*) ***** ********* ******** ***** *** ********* ******** ******* a ******* ******* ** ********, ***** *** ** ***** * 1 **** ****** ****** ** ********** ** ******** ** ****-***** assemblies.

(*) ******** ** ****** ********, ******** ******** ******** *** **** purpose *** **** *** ***********.

(*) *** *** ********* ******* ** ** * ******** **** on ** ***** *****, **** ******** ****** *** ******** *** the *******.

** *******, **** ******* **** '*******', ** ****** *** **** 'ENT', *** ** **** **** ** ** **** ** ** sure.

*** ***, ****'* **** ********** ** *** **********:******* *** ************ *********

******* *** ***** ********* ******** *******: **** *** ******* ***.** Subsection ***.**(*)

(*) *** *********** ***. ****** ********** ********* ** ***** ******** of **** ****, *** ******* ***** ** ********* ** *** nonresidential ******** ** *********** ******** **** * ******* ****.Rigid *********** ******* ***** ** ********* ****** ***-****** *****, ****** *** ******** where the walls, floors and ceilings provide a thermal barrier of material that has at least a one hour rated assembly as identified in listings of fire-rated assemblies.

*** ****** ********** ** ***** ** * ********* **** ** historical ******** ***********? ****** ******* *** ******** *****.

*** ********* ** *********** *** ******* *** ********** ***** *** any ******** *****, ***** *** *****.

*** ****** **** *** ********, *** ***** ****** **** * few ***** ***. ** *** ***** ** ******* ** *** community ***** * ***'* ***** ** **** ** **** *** contractor *********** *** ****. * ***** **** *** ******** ***** have ******* ** **** ******. **** ** *******.