Appeal of P.S. Docket No. 11/95 -- THE NEW BODY BOUTIQUE, THE NEW BODY BOUTIQUE, SHRINK-WRAP

 In the Matter of the Complaint Against

 THE NEW BODY BOUTIQUE, INC. also doing business as
 THE NEW BODY BOUTIQUE and as
 SHRINK-WRAP
 at 2105 Lakeland Avenue
 Ronkonkoma, NY 11779, et al

 P.S. Docket No. 11/95  

 09/08/82

 Cohen, James A.  

 APPEARANCE FOR COMPLAINANT:
 Hilda Rosenberg,Esq.
 Law Department
 Consumer Protection Division
 United States Postal Service
 Washington, DC 20260

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
 Lee H. Harter, Esq.
 2256 Van Ness Avenue
 San Francisco,CA 94109

POSTAL SERVICE DECISION ON

RESPONDENT'S MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF ORDER

The False Representation Order issued with the Postal Service Decision in this case on July 30, 1982, did not include Respondent's 801 Second Avenue, Suite 705, New York, NY 10017, address. The decision concluded that a False Representation Order should be issued against that address. However, noting potential inconvenience to Respondent at an address to which remittances for its product, Shrink-Wrap, are not routinely addressed, the parties were offered the opportunity to enter into a Consent Agreement with respect to that address. The decision provided, however "If a Consent Agreement is not entered into ... a False Representation Order will be issued against the Second Avenue address."

The parties have been unable to agree on a procedure for handling mail to that address. Respondent has filed a Motion For Modification Of Order in which it seeks modification of the decision and proposes establishment of a mail-handling procedure in leiu of a False Representation Order. Complainant objects to the procedure proposed by Respondent on the basis that the public would not be protected. Complainant further asserts that where, as here, a violation of 39 U.S.C. § 3005 has been found, a False Representation Order should be issued.

Respondent makes no arguments nor does it allege new facts which would alter the conclusions of the Postal Service decision. That decision was unequivocal in stating that a False Representation Order would be issued against the Second Avenue address unless a Consent Agreement could be reached by the parties. The parties did not reach a Consent Agreement. Respondent has provided no reason for departing from the original decision on this matter. Accordingly, Respondent's Motion is denied and a False Representation Order is issued against the Second Avenue address.