Appeal of P.S. Docket No. MD 97-190 -- PAULA A. SHEPPARD and LISA M. SIGNORELLI

Administrative Law Judges

In the Matter of a Mail Dispute  	)  August 15, 1997          
Between                          	)
                                 	)
PAULA A. SHEPPARD                	)
                                 	)
        and                      	)
                                 	)
LISA M. SIGNORELLI               	)  P.S. Docket No. MD 97-190 


APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT SHEPPARD:	Steven E. Cohen, Esq.
					Levitt and Cohen              
					Two Hillside Avenue, Bldg. F  
					Williston Park, NY 11596-2342

APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT SIGNORELLI:	D. Daniel Engstrand, Jr., Esq.
					Doniger & Engstrand
					225 Broadway, Suite 1805
					New York, NY 10007-3001

POSTAL SERVICE DECISION

On July 11, 1997, an Initial Decision was issued in which an Administrative Judge concluded that all mail addressed to Sheppard & Signorelli, 100 Crossways Park Drive West, Suite 210, Woodbury, NY 11797-2012 is to be delivered as directed by Disputant Sheppard. Disputant Signorelli has filed an appeal from the Initial Decision.

On appeal, Disputant Signorelli argues that the Administrative Judge incorrectly concluded that Disputant Sheppard was the partner in charge of winding up the partnership affairs since proceedings to resolve that issue are still pending before the New York State Supreme Court. Disputant Signorelli requests that the Postal Service continue to hold the mail until the New York court decides that issue.

The appeal by Disputant Signorelli does not establish that the Administrative Judge's Initial Decision is clearly erroneous or that any other grounds exist for the Judicial Officer to exercise his discretion to grant review of the Initial Decision. The partnership exists until it is dissolved under state law, and Disputant Sheppard can properly receive the mail at the disputed address as the majority partner. See Postal Operations Manual 614.1 (POM 7, August 1, 1996). Furthermore, the Administrative Judge concluded that, if a New York court orders that the disputed mail be delivered differently, the mail will be delivered in accordance with the court's order. Disputant Signorelli has not shown that she is either entitled to the mail or that there is good cause for continuing to hold the mail.⁽¹⁾

Accordingly, the Initial Decision is the final agency decision as provided in 39 C.F.R. з965.12. All mail addressed to Sheppard & Signorelli, 100 Crossways Park Drive West, Suite 210, Woodbury, NY 11797-2012 is to be delivered as directed by Disputant Sheppard. The parties are reminded that this decision determines only the right to delivery of the mail in dispute not the ownership of the mail. If either party receives mail intended for the other, that party is responsible for forwarding such mail to the intended recipient.

					James A. Cohen
					Judicial Officer

1. Disputant Signorelli also requests that her response to Disputant Sheppard's Order to Show Cause, which she asserts was improperly served in the New York court proceeding, should be considered on appeal. However, both parties were provided a full opportunity to present evidence in support of their right to delivery of the disputed mail and the information included in the response could have been furnished to the presiding Administrative Judge. See 39 C.F.R. зз965.5 and 965.6. Therefore, additional evidence will not be considered on appeal.