Applicant: Park Avenue New York Tax Exempt Money Market Fund, Inc. ("Applicant")

Relevant 1940 Act Sections: Deregistration under Section 8(f).

Summary of Application: Applicant seeks an order declaring that it has ceased to be an investment company subject to the 1940 Act.

Filing Date: The application on Form N-8f was filed on August 5, 1988, and an amendment was filed on November 1, 1988 with a supplemental letter dated October 31, 1988.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: If no hearing is ordered, the application will be granted. Any interested person may request a hearing on the application, or ask to be notified if a hearing is ordered. Any requests must be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on January 9, 1989. Request a hearing in writing, giving the nature of your interest, the reason for the request, and the issues you contest. Serve the Applicants with the request, either personally or by mail, and also send it to the Secretary of the SEC, along with proof of service by affidavit, or, for lawyers, by certificate. Request notification of the date of a hearing by writing to the Secretary of the SEC.

Addresses: Secretary, SEC, 450 5th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549; Applicant: Park Avenue New York Tax Exempt Money Market Fund, Inc.: 666 Old Country Road, Garden City, New York 11530.

For Further Information Contact: Bibb L. Strench, Staff Attorney, (202) 272-2856, or Karen L. Skidmore, Branch Chief, (202) 272-3023, Office of Investment Company Regulation. Supplementary Information: The following is a summary of the application; proper terms are

those defined in the application. The complete application is available for a fee from either the SEC's Public Reference Branch in person, or the SEC's commercial copier (800) 231-3282 (in Maryland (301) 258-4300). Applicants' Representations:

1. Applicant, a Maryland corporation, is registered as an open-end, non-diversified management investment company under the 1940 Act.

2. On July 19, 1984, Applicant filed a Notification of Registration pursuant to Section 8 of the 1940 Act on Form N-8A and filed a registration statement under the 1940 Act on Form N-1A.

The registration statement became effective on November 14, 1984. Applicant also registered under the Securities Act of 1933 an indefinite number of shares of common stock pursuant to Rule 24f-2 of the 1940 Act. Applicant's initial public offering commenced November 15, 1984. 3. The acquisition of Applicant by the Vista Fund was deemed to be in the best interests of each entity by their respective governing boards. The transaction enabled the Applicant's shareholders to derive the benefits offered to shareholders of the Vista Group which is a larger and more diverse family of funds than the Park Avenue fund had been. On February 24, 1988, the Board of Directors of the Applicant approved the terms of the reorganization. On April 22, 1988, pursuant to notice, a shareholders' meeting of the Applicant was held at which a majority of shareholders approved the reorganization.

4. As of April 29, 1987, Applicant's aggregate net assets were $236,950,457.63. On May 2, 1988, Applicant was party to a reorganization transaction which entailed the acquisition by the series of Mutual Fund Group designated as the Vista New York Tax Free Money Market Fund (the "Vista Fund") of all of the properties and assets, and the assumption of all of the liabilities, of the Applicant in exchange for an equal value of Vista Fund's shares of beneficial interest which were contemporaneously distributed to the shareholders of the Applicant. The exchange was done at net asset value as determined in accordance with Rule 2a-7 under the Act and the procedures set forth for valuation in each entities' respective governing instruments. The net asset value, offering price and redemption price per share was $1.00. The exact net asset value of the shares varied by some small degree from that exact amount, as permitted by Rule 2a-7. All portfolio securities of the Applicant were acquired by

Vista Fund in connection with the reorganization and no brokerage commissions were paid with respect thereto. All portfolio securities were valued at their amortized cost. Vista Fund assumed all of Applicant's obligations and liabilities then existing, whether absolute, accrued, contingent or otherwise.

5. Expenses incurred in connection with the reorganization, including costs of printing and mailing the Proxy Statement/Prospectus and accounting and legal fees, were borne by Vista Fund and Applicant pro rata according to each fund's aggregate net assets on the date of the reorganization. Aggregate expenses were approximately $115,573. Of such amount, approximately $98,400 was allocated to Applicant and approximately $17,173 was allocated to Vista Fund.

6. As of the time of filing the application, Applicant have no securityholders. No assets have been retained by Applicant and no liabilities remain outstanding. Applicant is not a party to any litigation or administrative proceedings. It is not presently engaged in, nor does it propose to engage in, any business activities other than those necessary for the winding up of its affairs. 7. Applicant filed a Certificate of Dissolution with the State of Maryland on May 2, 1988.

8. Applicant is current on its required filings, including its N-SAR filing.

For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority. Jonathan G. Katz Secretary

LITIGATION

Litigation Release No. 11933/December 8, 1988 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. ARTHUR B. SILVERMAN (USDC, D. Conn. Civil Action No. H-88-826AHN)

Douglas Scarff, Administrator of the Boston Regional Office of the Securities and Exchange Commission today announced the filing, on November 30, 1988, of a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against Arthur B. Silverman, formerly a registered representative with the Hartford, Connecticut office of a registered broker-dealer. The com

plaint alleged that Silverman, while associated with the broker-dealer, received material nonpublic information from a client relating to a proposed merger between Suffield Savings Bank, Connecticut and Coastal Savings Bank of Portland, Maine ("Coastal"). While in possession of that information, Silverman purchased securities of Coastal for himself, family members, and other clients. Simultaneous with the filing of the Com

plaint, Silverman, without admitting or denying the allegations of the complaint, consented to the entry of a Final Order of Permanent Injunction as more fully described below. The Final Order enjoins Silverman from future violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. In addition, Silverman is ordered to pay $9,171 in disgorgement to the registry of the Court, and to pay a penalty of $18,342 under the Insider Trading Sanctions Act of 1984 to the United States Treasury.

In a related administrative proceeding, Silverman consented to the issuance of an Order by the Commission suspending him from association with any broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, investment company or investment adviser for a period of six months. In June, 1988, Silverman was sentenced to pay a $10,000 fine in a charge of wire fraud stemming from his testimony before the staff in this matter. In assessing the sanction to be imposed on Silverman, the Commission considered, among other things, his age, his record of service in the community, and the fact that he has not been employed in the brokerage industry since March, 1988. The investigation leading to this matter as well as several other enforcement actions, was as the result of a referral to the Commission by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. For further information see Litigation Release Nos. 11732, 11777, 11778, 11795, 11873 and 11892.

Litigation Release No. 11938/December 9, 1988 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. JOEL D. WEISMAN No. H-88-825-PCD (District of Connecticut)

Douglas Scarff, Administrator of the Boston Regional Office of the Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on November 30, 1988 the Commission filed with the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut an action for a permanent injunction and other equitable relief against Joel D. Weisman ("Weisman"). The complaint alleges that

Weisman violated the antifraud provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") in connection with trading in the securities of Coastal Savings Bank ("Coastal Bank"). The Complaint specifically alleges that Weisman purchased Coastal Bank stock while in possession of confidential non-public information obtained from Robert DiGennaro (“DiGennaro"), the then Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Suffield Bank, relating to an imminent offer from Suffield Bank to merge with Coastal Bank, which was publicly announced after Weisman purchased the Coastal Bank stock.

In Spring, 1987, Weisman was subpoenaed to appear before the Commission and provide testimony. In his sworn deposition he denied any knowledge of confidential information concerning the merger prior to purchasing Coastal Bank stock in numerous personal and family accounts at different brokerage firms.

Immediately thereafter, Weisman recan.ed his testimony and played a significant role in exposing a scheme of insider trading and subsequent perjury and obstruction relating to the merger and the Commission's ongoing investigation. Weisman fully cooperated with the U.S. Attorney's Office. This assistance included wearing electronic surveillance equipment in a series of personal and telephone conversations with two of the targets of the investigation. These recorded conversations implicated both targets in insider trading and subsequent cover-up surrounding the Coastal acquisition. Weisman also cooperated fully with the U.S. Attorney's Office in all phases of grand jury investigation of insider trading, perjury and obstruction. Thereafter, he testified for the government at the criminal trial of one of the targets. Largely as a result of Weisman's cooperation in this investigation, to date four convictions have been obtained in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut and additional law enforcement actions are contemplated.

Litigation Release No. 11939/December 13, 1988

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. HUGHES CAPITAL CORPORATION, F.D. ROBERTS SECURITIES, INC. et al. (United States District Court for the District of New Jersey) (Civ. Action No. 88-5238) (AJL)

The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") announced today the filing of a

Complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Hughes Capital Corporation ("Hughes"), F.D. Roberts Securities, Inc. ("F.D. Roberts"), Howard Ackerman, Gilbert Beall, Dominick Fiorese, Frederick Galiardo, Sheldon G. Kanoff, John Knoblauch, Susan Lachance, Alan Lieb, Frederic Mascolo, John Perfetti, Lionel Reifler and Ira Victor. The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 5 and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b), 13(a) and 17(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5, 10b-6, 10b-9, 12b-25, 13a-13 and 17a-3 thereunder in connection with

the initial public offering (the "IPO") and secondary market trading in the securities of Hughes Capital Corporation. The Commission seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the defendants from further violations of those provisions and to require disgorgement of all proceeds realized from the alleged violations.

The Commission's Complaint alleges the following: Certain disclosed and undisclosed control persons of Hughes (the "issuer defendants") and certain officers and directors of F.D. Roberts engaged in a scheme to manipulate the price of Hughes securities. The specific fraudulent devices used to implement the scheme included: the dissemination of a prospectus for Hughes' IPO which contained false and misleading statements; the placement of the entire IPO in accounts under the control of the issuer defendants; the charging by F.D. Roberts of excessive undisclosed markups to bona-fide customers who purchased Hughes stock in the secondary market; the causing of arbitrary increases in the price of Hughes stock by F.D. Roberts; and, the dissemination of false and misleading press releases and investment advisory newsletters designed to stimulate investor interest in Hughes.

Simultaneously with the filing of the action, F.D. Roberts, Frederick Galiardo ("Galiardo"), Sheldon G. Kanoff ("Kanoff"), Alan Lieb ("Lieb") and John Perfetti (“Perfetti"), without admitting or denying the allegations of the Complaint, consented to the entry of permanent injunctions against future violations. F.D. Roberts also agreed to disgorge $279,825.75, which represents an amount equal to its underwriting fees, commissions, concessions and all other profits received from its transactions in Hughes. The Commission has requested that the Court appoint an Escrow Agent to submit a plan of disgorgement.

The settlement with F.D. Roberts, Galiardo, Kan

off, Lieb and Perfetti further contemplates that upon the entry of the permanent injunctions in the civil action, the Commission will institute administrative proceedings against F.D. Roberts, Galiardo, Kanoff, Lieb and Perfetti based upon the facts alleged in the Complaint and the entry of permanent injunctions. The Commission has agreed to accept the Offers of Settlement submitted by F.D. Roberts, Galiardo, Kanoff, Lieb and Perfetti providing for the entry of Commission orders making findings of fact, providing for a censure of the firm and ordering the firm to comply with certain undertakings. Among other things, the firm will retain a consultant to conduct a review of the deficiencies in F.D. Roberts' compliance and supervisory policies, procedures and practices for the purpose of making recommendations designed to prevent and detect future violations of the federal securities laws. The firm also has undertaken to refrain permanently from underwriting blind pool offerings.

Galiardo and Perfetti consented to Commission orders making findings of fact, and barring them from association with any broker, dealer, investment company, investment adviser or municipal securities dealer in any capacity with the proviso that they may make application to become associated with any such entity after a period of 30 months. Kanoff and Lieb consented to Commission orders making findings of fact, and barring them from association with any broker, dealer, investment company, investment adviser or municipal securities dealer in any capacity with the proviso that they may make application to become associated with any such entity after a period of 12 months.

Litigation Release No. 11940/December 14, 1988

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. HARVEY ALAN DOLINER, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Civ. Action No. 88-CIV 8806 (RJW)

The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") today announced the filing of a civil action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking permanent injunctive and other equitable relief against Harvey Alan Doliner. The Complaint alleges that Doliner violated Sections 10(b) and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rules 10b-5 and 14e-3 promulgated thereunder in connection with his

purchases of the common stock of Gartner Group, Inc. (“Gartner Group"). Simultaneous with the filing of the Commission's Complaint, Doliner, without admitting or denying the Commission's allegations, submitted a consent to the entry of a proposed Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction and Other Relief enjoining and restraining him from further violations of Sections 10(b) and 14(e) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5 and 14e-3 promulgated thereunder, ordering him to disgorge profits of $22,250.00, and to pay a one-time penalty of $22,250.00 under the Insider Trading Sanctions Act of 1984.

The Complaint alleges that Doliner, in connection with his employment as an Executive Vice President with Saatchi & Saatchi Holdings (USA), Inc., a United States-based subsidiary of Saatchi & Saatchi Company, PLC (collectively referred to as the “Saatchi Organization”), obtained material, nonpublic information concerning a contemplated acquisition of Gartner Group by the Saatchi Organization. In June 1988, the Saatchi Organization announced that it had agreed to acquire Gartner Group and that it would commence a tender offer for outstanding shares of Gartner Group common stock.

The Complaint alleges that Doliner was employed to perform and coordinate accounting due diligence in connection with acquisitions contemplated by the Saatchi Organization. The Complaint further alleges that Doliner was one of the employees of the United States-based subsidiary to whom the Board of Saatchi & Saatchi Company, PLC, delegated the responsibility to review potential acquisitions in the United States. It was in this capacity that Doliner allegedly learned of and participated in various nonpublic meetings and discussions both within the Saatchi Organization and between representatives of the Saatchi Organization and Gartner Group.

The Complaint alleges that during the period of May 6, 1988 through May 27, 1988, inclusive, Doliner purchased 2,500 shares of Gartner Group common stock. On July 13, 1988, Gartner group publicly disclosed that it was engaged in discussions with an undisclosed third party concerning a possible sale of Gartner Group. This constituted the first public disclosure of the discussions regarding the possible acquisition of Gartner Group by the Saatchi Organization.

The Complaint further alleges that on June 17, 1988, the Saatchi Organization announced publicly that it had agreed to buy Gartner Group and

that it would commence a tender offer for all outstanding shares of Gartner Group common stock, conditioned on receipt of a majority of Gartner Group common stock shares on a fully diluted basis and on approval of shareholders of Saatchi & Saatchi Company PLC. On June 27, 1988, Doliner sold his 2,500 shares of Gartner Group common stock and realized a profit of

$22,250.00 on his transactions in Gartner Group common stock.

This matter was referred to the Commission by the Market Surveillance Section of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., in Washington, D.C. The Commission is continuing its investigation in this matter.