Opinion
March 25, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.).
Petitioner's untimely filing of its PAR more than 35 days after the issuance of the overcharge order constituted a failure to exhaust administrative remedies justifying dismissal of petitioner's subsequent article 78 proceeding (see, Matter of Dowling v. Holland, 245 A.D.2d 167, 169, citing, inter alia, Matter of Lipes v. State of N.Y., Div. of Hous. Community Renewal, 174 A.D.2d 571). Petitioner's denial of receipt or other notice of the order until informed of it by the tenant's attorney is insufficient to overcome the presumption of receipt raised by respondent's evidence of its routine mailing procedures (see, supra, at 169, citing, inter alia, Woodner Co. v. Higgins, 179 A.D.2d 444, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 756).
Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Sullivan, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.