In Matter of Schaefer v. New York State Div. of Hous. & Community Renewal (19 Misc 3d 1132[A], 866 N.Y.S.2d 95, 2008 NY Slip Op 50973[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2008]), the only decision that appears to be factually on point with the issues present in this proceeding, this court (Komreich, J.) reaffirmed the DHCR's role as the determiner of what constitutes an "essential service," and left undisturbed a PAR order wherein the Commissioner weighed the equities and determined that the landlord's failure to repair a second floor security gate was not so serious a matter as to warrant cancelling the building-wide major capital improvement (MCI) rent increase that the landlord was otherwise entitled to. However, Justice Komreich was at pains to note that the RA in the underlying rent overcharge proceeding had declared the security gate to be an "essential service," and specifically rejected the Commissioner's later argument in the Article 78 proceeding that the absence of an asterisk in a similar building-wide rent reduction order afforded the DHCR a basis to declare that said service was "not essential."