The evidence presented by the respondent Division of Housing and Community Renewal (hereinafter DHCR), including sworn statements of its employees concerning routine office procedures followed in mailing rent reduction orders, was sufficient to establish a presumption of receipt by the petitioner landlord, Kansas Leasing Limited Partnership (hereinafter the landlord) of the rent reduction order dated December 12, 1995. The bare denial of receipt by the landlord was insufficient to rebut the presumption ( see, Matter of Panama Leasing Co. v. Division of Hous. Community Renewal, 237 A.D.2d 444; Woodner Co. v. Higgins, 179 A.D.2d 444). Accordingly, the petition for administrative review, filed far beyond the 35-day period of limitations contained in the regulations of the DHCR, was properly rejected as untimely. Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.
The evidence before the Zoning Board established that the adjoining landowners were provided with proper and timely-mailed notices of the public hearings conducted in connection with the petitioner's application for a variance. The landowners' contentions to the contrary were conclusory and insufficient to rebut the presumption of notice which arose in this matter ( see, e.g, Matter of T.E.A. Mar. Automotive Corp. v.Scaduto, 181 A.D.2d 776, 779; Rosa v. Board of Examiners, 143 A.D.2d 351; Matter of Rapuzzi v. City of N.Y. Civ. Serv. Commn., 161 A.D.2d 715, 715-716; see also, Facey v. Heyward, 244 A.D.2d 452; Matter of Panama Leasing Co. v. Division of Hous. Community Renewal, 237 A.D.2d 444; cf., Nassau Ins. Co. v. Murray, 46 N.Y.2d 828, 829). Inasmuch as there was no substantial evidence supporting the Zoning Board's decision to reopen the public hearings, the petitioner's application to annul the Zoning Board's determination should have been granted. Mangano, P.J., Miller, Ritter and Thompson, JJ., concur.