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

The petitioner's additional claim, that the Administrator's order violates SAPA because it disallows
lump sum costs which cannot be identified or challenged, is also without basis. It is noted that the
approved costs in this case have been determined based on the documentation as provided by the
owner during the administrative proceeding, and thus the petitioner-owner need only examine its own
submissions in order to identify those costs which have been disallowed. In raising this claim, the
petitioner again points to the disallowance of the full amount of claimed costs for McLean's work,
again asserting that there were certain items of work performed by !'vie Lean which are MCI eligible
yet were disallowed. However, as noted herein above, the submitted contract with McLean contains
no details as to the specific items of work performed and only provides an overall lump-sum cost for
tvlcLean's work. In light of the above-cited long-standing precedent, the Administrator properly
disallowed the entire scope and cost of McLean's work as "not l'v!Cl eligible," and the petitioner's

6
It is noted that even on appeal, the petitioner-owner has not submitted any documentary evidence further detailing the
actual scope of work performed by McLean or providing a breakdown of the coSIS associated with Ihe specific items of
work the peti1ioner is claiming to be MCI-eligible.