NYS DHCR Office of Rent Administration, Major Capital Improvement (OM) PAR Orders and Opinions (April-June 2026)

The Rent Administrator properly determined the qualifying scope of the improvement and the amount
of the approved costs and the rent increase. 2 The petitioner's claim that the Administrator excluded
qualifying items of work from the approved MCI is unsupported by the record. The petitioner
specifically points to the Administrator's disallowance of the entire amount claimed for work
performed by McLean Contracting totaling $1,163,794.00. 3 However, a review of the record shows
that the Administrator properly excluded the full amount claimed for McLean's work from the
approved MCI costs. In documenting the claimed McLean work, the owner submitted with the MCI
Application a copy of a standard AJA contract which described the work to be undertaken by McLean
only as "lobby renovation, roofing and canopy upgrade, waterproofing, electrical and HY AC project"
for a lump-sum cost of$ I, 164,600.00. No further infomi ation describing the specifics of the work or
providing an itemized cost breakdown of the work actually perfom1ed by McLean was submitted.
While the contract makes reference to "additional documents" forming a part of the contract. no
copies of these additional documents were attached to the submitted contract. 4 Furthennore, contrary
to the petitioner's claim. a comprehensive review of the entire record reveals that no documentation
further detailing McLean's scope of work or providing an itemized cost breakdown was submitted at
any time during the proceeding before the Administrator. The record thus contains no detailed
description of the specific work undertaken by McLean or a breakdown of costs which would allow
for a detennination of whether there were specific items of work perfom1ed by McLean which may
have been MCI-eligible as well as the itemized costs of