Where a fair hearing applicant claims, as in this case, that no notice was received, the Agency has the burden of establishing that the notice was properly addressed, posted and mailed to the recipient ( see, Matter of Miller v. Perales, 189 A.D.2d 874). This burden can be satisfied by providing evidence of "a proper office routine and procedure, which could then establish a rebuttable presumption of receipt" ( Matter of Kassler v. Wing, 239 A.D.2d 583, 584). However, when there is no proof that a practice has been established or followed, the presumption does not arise ( Matter of Gonzalez [Ross], 47 N.Y.2d 922, 923).
In this case, the municipal respondent defaulted at the fair hearing, and did not provide the petitioner with a copy of the August 10, 1995 notice. Without proof of actual receipt of notice or sufficient evidence to support a rebuttable presumption of receipt of notice, there is no basis for finding that the limitation period of 60 days set forth in Social Services Law § 22 (4) (a) ever began to run. Accordingly, there was no substantial evidence supporting State respondent's determination that the request for a fair hearing was untimely ( Matter of Bates v. Blum, 86 A.D.2d 563). Therefore, we annul the determination and remand to the respondent State Agency for a fair hearing to review the merits of the administrative appeal.