In the Matter of the Complaint Against

 RUSH INDUSTRIES, INC.
 871 Willis Ave.
 Albertson, NY 11507-1915

 and
 HAROLD BREINDEL
 871 Willis Ave. Albertson, NY 11507-1915

 P.S. Docket No. 18/169 
 
 05/31/84
 
 Cohen, James A.  

 APPEARANCES FOR COMPLAINANT:
 Kenneth N. Hollies, Esq.
 Brendan J. O'Brien, Esq.
 Consumer Protection Division
 Law Department
 United States Postal Service
 Washington, DC 20260-1112

 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
 Robert Ullman, Esq.
 Bass, Ullman & Lustigman
 747 Third Avenue
 New York, NY 10017-2803

Respondent has appealed to the Judicial Officer from an Administrative Law Judge's denial of its Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. Respondent has also filed a Motion to Stay the Hearing while the appeal is being considered by the Judicial Officer.

In its appeal, Respondent contends that the Administrative Law Judge erred in denying its Motion to Dismiss. The motion was premised on the execution of a Consent Agreement in a prior case involving the same parties and product and the principles of collateral estoppel, res judicata and fundamental fairness.

Respondent's appeal is essentially a request for an interlocutory ruling on the propriety of the Administrative Law Judge's denial of the Motion to Dismiss. Interlocutory rulings are not provided for in the Rules of Practice and will not be issued except on a showing of extraordinary circumstances. Respondent has not established that such extraordinary circumstances exist in this case.

Accordingly, Respondent's appeal to the Judicial Officer and Motion to Stay the Hearing are denied and the matter is remanded to the Administrative Law Judge for appropriate action.