In the Matter of the Petition by  	) July 22, 1998
       					)
THERESA A. PETRILLO    			)
131 Nimbus Road     			)
Holbrook, NY  11741-4433    		)
       					)
       					)
       					)
Termination of Post Office Box Service  )
for P.O. Box 451, Holbrook, NY   	) P.S. Docket No. POB 98-195

APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:  		Theresa A. Petrillo
       					131 Nimbus Road
       					Holbrook, NY  11741-4433

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:  		Janessa L. Grady, Esq.
       					Civil Practice Section
       					United States Postal Service
       					475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW
       					Washington, D.C. 20260-1127

This proceeding arises from a Petition filed by Ms. Petrillo after being informed by a letter dated April 27, 1998, from the Holbrook, New York Postmaster, Clinton R. O'Neill, that he had decided to close her post office box because her behavior had been "abusive and threatening on a regular basis."

With its Answer, Respondent, United States Postal Service, filed a Declaration from a Holbrook window clerk and a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that there are no material facts in dispute and that Respondent is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. By Order dated June 10, 1998, Petitioner was given until July 6, 1998 to reply to the motion and was advised that she should state specifically what portions of Respondent's "Statement of Facts" she disagrees with. Petitioner received that Order on June 13, 1998, but submitted no reply.

The following findings of fact are based on the Petition and the Declaration of Leslie Funk, filed by Respondent:

1. Petitioner rents Box 451 at the Holbrook, New York Post Office. She comes to the post office approximately once per week to pick up mail. Often during these visits, she has accused the clerks of stealing her mail or the keys to her box. To allay her fears, the clerks have changed the lock on Box 451 several times. (Funk Declaration).

2. On April 23, 1998, after picking up her mail, Petitioner again accused the clerks of stealing her mail. As she was being told by one of the clerks that this was not so, Petitioner saw one of the mail carriers walking toward his car. She then said he was stealing her mail at that very moment, and urged someone to go after him. Petitioner's loud talking and movement around the post office lobby caused some disturbance, and caused other customers to be delayed for several minutes in getting service. The postmaster was summoned by one of the clerks and he warned Petitioner that he would call the police if she did not leave. She did not leave, so he did call the police but she left before they arrived. (Funk Declaration).

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). By the Declaration of Leslie Funk, a witness to the events of April 23 as well as earlier visits by Petitioner to the Holbrook Post Office, which Declaration was not contested or contradicted by Petitioner, Respondent has established the absence of any genuine issue of fact. As Petitioner has not offered anything to counter this evidence, summary judgment is appropriate.

Section D910.8.2 of the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) gives a postmaster authority to terminate box service if a customer "conducts himself or herself in a violent, threatening, or otherwise abusive manner on postal premises.⁽¹⁾ " There is no evidence that Petitioner's conduct was violent or threatening, but it was abusive toward the clerks personally and it was abusive of other customers right to conduct business in an orderly manner.⁽²⁾ The fact that she had made similar accusations against the clerks on earlier occasions is also an important consideration in judging the reasonableness of the postmaster's decision.

In her Petition, Ms. Petrillo airs many complaints, most of which do not involve the Postal Service at all. She presents no evidence, however, that her accusations against postal employees have any basis in fact. She also denies that she was abusive on April 23, or any other time, but I find Ms. Funk's sworn statement to be more persuasive.

The postmaster acted within his authority under DMM §D910.8.2 to terminate Petitioner's post office box service. Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted, and the postmaster's decision to terminate Petitioner's post office box service is sustained. The Petition is dismissed.

       				Bruce R. Houston
				Chief Administrative Law Judge