November 9, 2001

 

In the Matter of a Mail Dispute

Between

 

JOAN C. NERI

 

and

 

VINCENT NERI

 

P.S. Docket No. MD 01-295

 

APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT JOAN C. NERI:

Edwin Doernberger, Esq.

Saxe, Doernberger & Vita, PC

1952 Whitney Avenue

Hamden, CT  06517-1209

 

APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT VINCENT NERI:

Edward L. Marcus, Esq.

The Marcus Law Firm

111 Whitney Avenue

New Haven, CT  06510-1232

 

                                                  POSTAL SERVICE DECISION

 

            On October 24, 2001, an Initial Decision was issued in which it was concluded that all mail currently being held or hereafter received addressed to Neri Construction, L.L.C., at 112 Nod Road, Suite 13, Clinton, CT 06413-1009; P.O. Box 93, Clinton, CT 06413-0093 and 316 B East Main Street, Clinton, CT 06413-2224 should be delivered as addressed.  Disputant Vincent Neri has appealed the Initial Decision, arguing that he is the Managing Member of Neri Construction and, therefore, solely entitled to direct delivery of the mail in dispute.

            Disputant Vincent Neri has not shown that the Initial Decision is clearly erroneous or that any other grounds exist for the Judicial Officer to exercise his discretion to grant review of that Decision.  Under the corporation’s Operating Agreement, both disputants have an equal right to obtain delivery of the corporation’s mail.  Since it appears the corporation continues to operate out of the Nod Road address and to use the post office box as one of its mailing addresses, mail intended for the corporation at those two addresses should be delivered as addressed.  Moreover, the East Main Street address is Mr. Neri’s residence, and, therefore, he is the most likely intended recipient of mail to that address.

Accordingly, the Initial Decision is the final agency decision as provided in 39 C.F.R. §965.12.  The parties are reminded that this decision determines only the right to delivery of the mail in dispute not the ownership of the mail.[1]  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 Vincent Neri argues that the Initial Decision is “in effect a non-decision” because it does not determine the ownership of the mail.  As correctly concluded in the Initial Decision, the principal purpose of the mail delivery rules is to ensure that mail is delivered to the intended recipient, not to determine entitlement to the contents of the mail or any other dispute between the parties.