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

' Section 6.1.6 of the McLean contract contains a list of additional documents that were intended to fonn a part of the
"Contract Documents." These included in relevant part: a Rider, a Proposal dated May 11, 2017, Specifications and
Drawings. As noted, none of these documents were attached to the submitted contract, and thus the only available
description of McLean's scope of wor k is the general description stated on page t of the contract, and there is no
submitted breakdown of the costs associated with specific items of work perfom1ed by McLean.

'The additional McLean work referenced by the petitioner which, as described, relates solely to the commercial space in
the building would not qualify as MCI-eligible in that such work does not inure to the benefit of the residential tenants.·

. 2
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW DOCKET NO. NV210025RO
Further. as noted, there was no submitted breakdown of McLean's costs with would allow for a
detem1ination of the amounts specifically attributable to the HY AC and mailbox installations. 6 It has
been long-standing DHCR policy and precedent that, in cases where the owner has failed to
document claimed MCI work with the requisite detail such that a determination of whether any or all
of the work may be MCI-eligible and in what amounts, then that entire claimed scope of work and its
associated cost is deemed not to be MCI-eligible and will be excluded from the approved MCI (see
e.g. Dockets AV43004 I RO; UG430044RO; YA 110055RO). In light of this, The Commissioner finds
no error b y the Administrator in disallowing the total amount claimed for McLean's work. 7