When challenged about an IAI, such as in an overcharge proceeding, an owner must submit evidence of the cost
incurred for that item. Therefore, where an owner is seeking a rent increase for more than one item of work,
a lump sum bill may not suffice. DHCR has discretion to accept a lump sum bill under certain circumstances
where, for example, DHCR concludes that:
1. The evidence submitted establishes that all the work claimed to have been done was as a coordinated
project and was satisfactorily completed; and
2. Each item of work was either an “improvement” or an ordinary repair and maintenance that was done in
connection with, and as a necessary component, of an allowable IAI. Even such coordinated projects are
best supported by itemized proof and the absence of such itemization, may result in additional scrutiny
or denial. When proof is not adequate in DHCR’s view, such IAI increase may be denied in its entirety
or the difference between the claimed cost and the substantiated cost will be disallowed depending on
the result of DHCR’s review of the documentation.
VI. USEFUL LIFE
An owner who receives an increase for an IAI is not entitled to a further increase based upon the installation
of similar equipment or furniture within the useful life of such equipment or furniture. Unlike major capital
improvements, which have a useful life schedule, DHCR’s determination of whether an IAI’s useful life has
been met will be based on the facts of each case.
Where the useful life of an IAI is at issue and the installation was completed during a vacancy or included on
a vacancy lease, DHCR may require the owner to submit documentation to prove that the useful life of the old
equipment or furniture had been exhausted.