Opinion
April 13, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jack Turret, J.).
Our affirmance [ 146 A.D.2d 973] of IAS's finding that petitioner had timely served its petition for administrative review was based on the misapprehension that the receipts for certified mail attached to the envelopes in which the PAR was enclosed, and which bore a date in a space marked "Postmark or Date" indicating a timely mailing, constituted "other adequate proof of mailing * * * such as an official Postal Service receipt or certificate of mailing" within the meaning of respondent's regulation governing the service of PARs ( 9 NYCRR 2529.2). In fact, there is nothing "official" about these receipts at all. They were filled in by petitioner, and do not bear the familiar circular stamp of the post office verifying the date of mailing. Absent objective proof of timely mailing of the sort required by the regulation, respondent's determination that the PAR had not been timely served should not have been disturbed (Matter of Kawary v. Joy, 84 A.D.2d 550), based as it was on a rational interpretation of its own rule (Matter of Plaza Mgt. Co. v. City Rent Agency, 48 A.D.2d 129, 131, affd 37 N.Y.2d 837).
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Ross, Carro, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.