United States Postal Service(TM) 



 In the Matter of the Complaint Against

 NORTHEAST ENTERPRISES
 Post Office Box 537 at
 Laurel Springs, New Jersey 08021

 and Post Office Box 462
 Lenox Hill Station at
 New York, New York 10021

 P.S. Docket No. 7/4;  
 
 10/11/79
 
 Cohen, James A.  

 APPEARANCE FOR COMPLAINANT:
 Thomas A. Ziebarth, Esq.
 Consumer Protection Office
 Law Department
 United States Postal Service
 Washington, DC 20260

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
 Joseph A. Carmen, Esq.
 One Executive Campus
 Route 70 & Cuthbert Boulevard
 Cherry Hill, New Jersey 08002

POSTAL SERVICE DECISION

ON PETITION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER

Prior proceedings in this matter led to the issuance of Mail Stop order No. 79-24 dated April 13, 1979, against mail addressed to Northeast Enterprises, P.O. Box 537, Laurel Springs, New Jersey 08021.

On September 12, 1979, Complainant filed a petition for supplemental order, with attachments, alleging in effect that Respondent is evading or attempting to evade the provisions of Mail Stop Order No. 79-24, by conducting the same scheme under the same name at a different address. The address at which the petition alleges the same scheme is being conducted and against which the supplemental order is requested to be issued is P.O. Box 462, Lenox Hill Station, New York, N.Y. 10021.

By notice dated September 13, 1979, Respondent was notified that if it intended to oppose the petition for supplemental order it could file its answer not later than 10 calendar days from the date of receipt of the petition. The petition was delivered to

Respondent and its counsel on September 17, 1979. No answer to the petition was filed by Respondent within the time allowed or as of the date of this decision.

By the attachments to the petition, a prima facie showing has been made that Respondent is evading or attempting to evade the provisions of Mail Stop Order No. 79-24, by conducting the scheme which is the subject of the order at a different address. Accordingly, a supplemental mail stop order against Respondent at the address alleged in the petition is being issued contemporaneously with this decision.