Petitioner's public assistance benefits were properly discontinued upon substantial evidence that petitioner received the notice from respondent local social services agency to report for an initial intake appointment to the Work Experience Program, and willfully and without good cause failed to so report (see, Matter of Tessler v. Hammons, 251 A.D.2d 63). The agency's affidavits established that it followed a regular office procedure designed to insure that such notices were properly addressed and mailed, raising a presumption of receipt thereof by petitioner (see,Matter of Gonzalez v. Ross, 47 N.Y.2d 922; Nassau Ins. Co. v. Murray, 46 N.Y.2d 828; Matter of Dowling v. Holland, 245 A.D.2d 167, 169). Petitioner's attempt to overcome the presumption by denying receipt of the notice, offering proof that his mailbox lock was broken and pointing out that he responded to other notices sent to him by respondents raised issues of credibility that are beyond this Court's review (see, Matter of Berenhaus v. Ward, 70 N.Y.2d 436, 443-444). We have considered and rejected petitioner's other arguments.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.