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

The petitioner now claims on appeal that McLean performed specific items ofwo_rk which should
qualify as MC!s, including (in part) the installation of new mailboxes and a new HVAC system. 5
However, as noted herein above, the submitted contract with McLean contains only a general
reference to some kind of HVAC work and contains no indication at all of mailbox installations.

'Of the $3,132,832.09 MCI costs initially claimed in the Application (the sum of the individual amounts listed on page I,
not the incorrectly stated total of $3,132,832.53), the owner withdrew the claims for facade restoration in the amount of
$1,224,376.68 and architectural fees relating to the facade in the amount of$ t 21,900.46, leaving a total claimed cost of
$1,786,554.95. In addition, on appeal the owner is not disputing the Administrator's disallo\vance of signs, canaries and
engineer's fees related to the canopies, totaling $111,188.00. The Administrator approved a total MCI amount of
$172,540.50, leaving a total amount of disallowed costs being disputed on ap-peal of $1,502,826.45.

3 The petitioner has raised a generalized claim to the effect that the Administrator "undoubtedly" excluded MCI­

qualifying items and that "it cannot be reasonably disputed" that the disallowed work included items which qualify for a
rent increase. H0\\1 ever, other than referring to the disallowance of McLean's work, the petitioner has not raised any
specific claim. as to which items ()f disallowed work are being challenged and has not pointed to any specific evidence in
the record in support of such claim. Upon careful review of the record, the Commissioner finds no evidence that the
Administrator erroneously disallowed costs associated with items of work which should qualify as MCI-eligible.