In the Matter of the Petition by ) May 17, 1996 ) BODO URBAN ) 170-32 Cedarcroft Road ) Jamaica, NY 11432-2726 ) ) ) Termination of Post Office Box ) Service for P.O. Box 115, ) New Kingston, NY 12459 ) P.S. Docket No. POB 96-125 APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER: Bodo Urban, Pro Se 170-32 Cedarcroft Road Jamaica, NY 11432-2726 APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT: Rodney Gould, Esq. Consumer Protection Law United States Postal Service 474 L'Enfant Plaza, SW Washington, DC 20260-1147
This proceeding arises out of a Petition filed by Mr. Urban on March 4, 1996, appealing the Postmaster's Determination of February 16, 1996 to terminate service for P.O. Box 115 in New Kingston, New York. The postmaster's letter stated that service was being terminated pursuant to provisions of the Domestic Mail Manual that prohibit use of a post office box solely for the purpose of having mail forwarded to another address.
The appeal was forwarded through appropriate channels, and was docketed here on April 5, 1996. On April 26, 1996, Respondent, the United States Postal Service, filed its Answer to the Petition, along with a Motion for Summary Judgment. By Order of April 29, 1996, Petitioner was given until May 15, 1996 to reply to the motion. Mr. Urban's reply was received on May 15, 1996. The following Findings of Fact are based on Petitioner's submissions, as well as all the material in the original case file.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Mr. Herbert Raudnael, at some time prior to 1990, became a resident of New Kingston, New York, at least for the summer months. He rented Post Office Box 204 at the New Kingston Post Office, and added the name of his brother-in-law, Bodo Urban, as an authorized user of that box.
2. Petitioner, Mr. Urban, never picked up mail at the New Kingston Post Office, but was given forwarding service from Box 204 for some years. In the latter part of 1992 and early 1993, in an effort to clarify the rules regarding mail forwarding, the New Kingston Postmaster wrote three letters to Mr. Urban, following at least one telephone call. In a letter dated April 14, 1993, the postmaster told Mr. Urban that a box cannot be used solely for the purpose of having mail forwarded to another address, that the limit on temporary forwarding is one year, and that he must pick up his mail. The case file is unclear what, if anything, happened as a result of this letter.
3. On November 11, 1995, Mr. Raudnael sent the postmaster a note stating that he did not want mail addressed to Bodo or Helga Urban placed in Box 204 any longer, and that he had so informed the Urbans. Sometime thereafter, Petitioner submitted a change of address card, asking that his mail be forwarded. The postmaster sent him a note on January 18, 1996, informing him that "mail cannot be forwarded as you do not have a New Kingston address."
4. On January 26, 1996, Petitioner rented Box 115 at the New Kingston Post Office, and immediately requested forwarding service, which the postmaster refused. On that same day, Mr. Urban approached another postal customer and asked if he could hire her to get the mail from his box and send it to him. She declined. He then asked a post office employee if she would send him some specific pieces of mail when they arrived at his box. On February 7, 1996, Petitioner sent in a temporary change of address card.
5. On February 16, 1996, the postmaster sent Mr. Urban the letter terminating service to Box 115, for the following reasons:
Your immediate request for forwarding service on the
day you applied for the box, your failure to pick up mail
since that date, and your submission of a Change of
Address Order dated within two weeks of renting the
box indicate that you are using the box for the sole
purpose of having your mail forwarded to another
address. This violates postal regulations (DMM D910.3.7).
6. On March 4, 1996, Petitioner sent the postmaster a "Letter of Appeal,"
with a copy of a lease agreement purporting to show that he was a tenant in New
Kingston. The lease, signed in 1989 by Mr. Urban as tenant and Mr. Raudnael as
landlord, lists only P.O. Box 204 as the address for both of them, and names no
address as the property being rented.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) § D910.7.2a. states:
A postmaster may terminate post ofice box service if the
box customer . . . violates any regulation or condition on
the care or use of the box.
2. DMM § 910.3.7 states:
Boxes may not be used when the sole purpose is, through
change-of-address orders, to have the USPS forward mail
to another address free of charge.
3. A grant of summary judgment is proper when there are no issues of material fact in dispute and when, as a matter of law, the moving party is entitled to judgment. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-24 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine issue of fact and, if that burden is met, the opposing party must counter with something more than "mere denials or conclusory statements." Mingus Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 812 F.2d 1387, 1390 (Fed. Cir. 1987); see also Adickes v. S.H. Kress Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157-59; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
4. Respondent's evidence establishes that Petitioner continuously had mail forwarded from the New Kingston Post Office while he was sharing Mr. Raudnael's Box 204. It is also clear that this was his intention when he rented Box 115. Mr. Urban does not dispute this. His appeal is based on his assertion that the lease which he attached is valid, thus entitling him to a post office box.
5. Petitioner has submitted no evidence that raises a material issue of fact. Even assuming that the lease is valid, although it does not identify the property being leased, this raises no issue over the forwarding of mail. Nor does the fact that the New Kingston post office may have allowed Petitioner's mail to be forwarded in past years grant him a permanent exemption from the rules, and it is not a basis for overturning the postmaster's decision. If Mr. Urban does have a residence in New Kingston, he may certainly have mail delivered to that residence, but that would not entitle him to a post office box if the only purpose of the box is to have mail forwarded to some other place.
6. In his response to the Motion for Summary Judgment, Mr. Urban includes a statement that he is disabled and that the New Kingston Post Office does not provide him adequate access. If this is intended to suggest that he should be granted mail forwarding because he is physically unable to pick up his mail at the post office, he has not provided sufficient evidence to make that an issue. In fact, the evidence regarding the events of January 26, 1996 tends to disprove such a claim.
7. The Postmaster's Determination to close Petitioner's post office box
based on violation of DMM § D910.3.7 is sustained. Accordingly, Respondent's
Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and the Petition is dismissed.
Bruce R. Houston Acting Chief Administrative Law Judge