Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the record fails to substantiate his claim that he was not served with notice of the foreclosure action. Rather, the affidavit of mailing and the mailing list which appear in the record, viewed in the context of the presumption of regularity which attaches (see, Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 11-412 [c]), amply demonstrate that he was properly and timely served (see generally, City of Yonkers v. Clark Son, 159 A.D.2d 535; Matter of Tax Foreclosure Action No. 33, 141 A.D.2d 437; Matter of Tax Foreclosure No. 35, 127 A.D.2d 220, affd 71 N.Y.2d 863).
The appellant's remaining contentions are barred by the conclusive presumption of regularity set forth in Administrative Code § 11-412 (c) (see, Matter of ISCA Enters. v. City of New York, 77 N.Y.2d 688, cert denied ___ US ___, 112 S Ct 1263; Lily Pond Enters. v. City of New York, 149 A.D.2d 412; Matter of Tax Foreclosure No. 35, supra). Sullivan, J.P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence and O'Brien, JJ., concur.