In the Matter of a Mail Dispute
Between
GERARD ZWIRN
and
JOSEPH FISCHER
P.S. Docket No. MD 01-297
APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT GERARD ZWIRN:
Gerard Zwirn, Esq.
43-43 Northern Boulevard
APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT JOSEPH FISCHER:
Joseph Fischer
INITIAL DECISION
This mail dispute has been docketed
pursuant to Postal Operations Manual (POM 8, July 16, 1998 (with Revisions
through June 28, 2001)) Section 616.21, which requires the Chief Field Counsel
to forward certain unresolved mail disputes to the Judicial Officer for
resolution. The mail in dispute is that
addressed to City Line Auto Mall, Inc., at
Mr. Fischer submitted a sworn statement, signed by himself and Mr. Tornheim, in support of his claim to the disputed mail, as required by 39 C.F.R. §965.5. Mr. Zwirn did not submit a sworn statement, or anything else, in support of his claim. The following findings of fact are based on Mr. Fischer's statement and the materials forwarded by the United States Postal Service Law Department, New York Metro Office, including letters and other documents previously submitted by both parties.
FINDINGS
OF FACT
1.
City Line Auto Mall, Inc., was incorporated in
2.
Mr. Fischer is allied in this dispute with Chaim Tornheim. Some time ago, Mr. Fischer says it was
December 27, 1999, Mr. Fischer, Mr. Tornheim, and Mr. Zwirn signed a hand-printed
agreement described as an agreement "between Cityline Auto Mall, Inc.
& Joseph Fischer & Chaim Tornheim." Fischer was called "the
Buyer." Cityline AutoMall, Inc. was
called "the Dealer." Mr. Zwirn
signed the document as "Pres."
(Fischer/Tornheim affidavit,
3.
Paragraph 3 of the agreement states that "The Dealership shall work
in conjunction with F & T, who shall operate the business . . .." Paragraph 4, however, states that "The
Dealership shall continue to operate the business in conjunction with F & T
. . .." "F & T" were
to receive 75% of the profits of the business and also were permitted to attend
dealer auctions on behalf of "
4. The agreement stated that all debts prior to the date of the agreement would be solely the obligation of "it's" officers, Joseph Passarelli and Gerard Zwirn, and that Joseph Fischer and Chaim Tornheim shall be responsible for debts thereafter. Printed along the side of the second page of the agreement, in different handwriting, are the statements, "We will modify this into a shareholders agreement," and "Buyer can make corporate change or new corp."
5.
On
6. Sometime prior to May 8, 2001, Mr. Zwirn, or someone acting on his behalf, directed that mail addressed to City Line Auto Mall, Inc., at 35-18/35-10 43rd Street, Long Island City, NY be forwarded to 43-43 Northern Boulevard, Long Island City, NY 11101. On May 8, 2001, Mr. Tornheim wrote to the Long Island City Post Office to protest this action, and this mail dispute arose.
DECISION
Although the documents submitted by Mr. Fischer seem to support his argument that he and Mr. Tornheim are now the principal owners and officers of the business, it is not clear that all necessary legal steps have been taken to transfer ownership and corporate authority. Having not filed the sworn statement required by 39 C.F.R. §965.5, however, Mr. Zwirn is in default. That alone is a basis for ruling in favor of Mr. Fischer (39 C.F.R. §965.7). In addition, the documents filed by Mr. Fischer provide a sound basis for ruling in his favor.
In three separate letters to the Long Island City Post Office or to the Law Department, and in their November 8, 2001 affidavit, Mr. Fischer and/or Mr. Tornheim state that they are operating the business known as City Line Auto Mall, Inc., at the disputed address and have been doing so for more than a year. There is nothing in the case file from Mr. Zwirn that disputes this. Therefore, it is assumed that persons sending mail to City Line Auto Mall, Inc., at the disputed address intend for it to be received by Mr. Fischer and Mr. Tornheim. Accordingly, the mail should be delivered as addressed.
This decision deals only with delivery of the mail. It does not attempt to resolve any other disputes between the parties. If either party obtains a court order directing delivery of the mail, postal regulations provide that the mail will be delivered according to such an order. POM §616.3.
The Judicial Officer should issue an order to the Long Island City Postmaster directing that the disputed mail be delivered as addressed.
Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge