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

7
Any claim by the petitioner to the effect that the Administrator was obligaled 10 send a request for information allowing
rhe owner an opportuniry to submir 1hc requisite dt:>tails and cost breakdown of McLean's \\'Ork is \Vithout merit. It is ,veil
eslablished law 1hat it is 1he owner's responsibilily upon tiling an MCI Applicalion to submit all documentation required
in order to substantiate the MCI eligibility of and the amounts paid for the claimed work (see e.g. Dockels FU 1100 I 5RO:
UG4:!0047RO; ZG430034RO). Furthermore, it has been long-established DHCR policy (as per Operalional Bulletin
20 t 7-1) Ihat, in filing an MCI Application, the owner must document both the scope and the amount paid for the claimed
work in sufficient detail such that both the MCI eligibility and the actual cost of the claimed work are substantiated. The
owne r in 1he proceeding at hand was thus on due notice that, upon filing the MCI Application, the work claimed to have
been perfonned by McLean had to be documented wilh sufficient detail so as to es1ablish the MCI-eligibility of and the
amounts paid for the specific clements of work perfom1ed. As no1ed, DHCR was under no duty Io send a requesl for
information so as to provide rhe owner with an opportunity to submit documentation which the owner knew or should
hJve knovm was required to be submitted in order to properly substantiate the claimed MCI.

3
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW DOCKET NOS. LO4I0029RO & LO410030RT
apartment. The Commissioner, having reviewed the petitioners' appeals and any and all supporting
documentation, any and all statements made by affected parties, the underlying case file and all
relevant Rent Regulatory Laws and Regulations, finds that both appeals do not have merit and should
be denied.