April 11, 2001
Appeal of
J. LEONARD SPODEK and SARA NATHANSON
NATIONWIDE POSTAL MANAGEMENT
LEASE AGREEMENT
(Northside Station – Tulsa, OK)
PSBCA Nos. 4222 and 4266
APPEARANCE FOR APPELLANTS:
J. Leonard Spodek
Sara Nathanson
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Melinda Varszegi, Esq.
OPINION OF THE BOARD ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Appellants, J. Leonard Spodek and Sara Nathanson, d/b/a Nationwide Postal Management (Appellant) have filed a motion for reconsideration of the Board’s Opinion dated November 13, 2000, J. Leonard Spodek and Sara Nathanson dba Nationwide Postal Management, PSBCA Nos. 4222 and 4266, 01-1 BCA ¶ 31,162. Specifically, Appellant requests that the Board reconsider its decision to allow Respondent to recover administrative costs of $550 in PSBCA No. 4222 and its denial of Appellant’s appeal in PSBCA No. 4266. Respondent opposes the motion.
PSBCA No. 4222
Appellant argues that allowing Respondent to recover administrative costs was improper because Respondent “seized $426.80 [from Appellant]” and failed to return the money, and because Respondent attempted to impose “overtime charges” on Appellant in connection with some of the repairs.
Neither of these allegations has any relationship to the question of Respondent’s entitlement to recover administrative costs. The $426.80 represented an amount for certain construction work that Respondent acknowledged was improperly charged to Appellant, and at the hearing Respondent reduced its demand by that amount. See J. Leonard Spodek and Sara Nathanson dba Nationwide Postal Management, PSBCA Nos. 4222 and 4266, 01-1 BCA ¶ 31,162 at 153,923. That amount has no bearing on Respondent’s entitlement to recover administrative costs incurred in awarding and administering the third party contract. Appellant has also offered no explanation of the relevance of alleged “overtime charges” in connection with the repairs, to the question of administrative costs, and we see none.
Appellant also argues that the administrative charges should be eliminated or at least reduced in amount, because the Board disallowed significant portions of the amounts Respondent sought. This question was specifically addressed in our original Opinion, and Appellant has not provided any basis for revising our conclusion. Id. at 153,925.
Appellant argues that the Board’s denial of Appellant’s appeal in PSBCA No. 4266 was incorrect because the Postal Service replaced the air conditioning unit in the Northside station in 1989, thereby relieving Appellant of the responsibility for maintaining the unit. Appellant raised a similar argument in its brief following the hearing but did not offer any evidence at the hearing to support the allegation. Appellant now attempts to cure this oversight by submitting a document with its motion which, it argues, demonstrates that Respondent replaced the air conditioning unit at the Northside facility in 1989. However, Appellant has not demonstrated that this document was unavailable prior to the close of the record in the appeal. Therefore, arguments based on this document are not a basis for reconsideration of the Board’s decision. See Patricia J. Stevens, PSBCA No. 3272, 94-2 BCA ¶ 26,951.
More importantly, even if it was true that the air conditioning unit was replaced in 1989, Appellant has failed to demonstrate how this circumstance would relieve the lessor of its responsibility under clause No. 6 of the lease to maintain the air conditioning unit at the leased facility. See Id. at 153,925.
We have reviewed our findings of fact and application of law, and we are satisfied that we fully considered all of Appellant’s arguments. Appellant has not demonstrated any factual or legal errors that would warrant changing our decision in these appeals. See B.C. Topps d/b/a Topps Transport, PSBCA No. 2241, 89-2 BCA ¶ 21,764.
Accordingly, Appellant’s motion for reconsideration is denied and the original Opinion is affirmed.
William K. Mahn
Board Member
I concur:
James A. Cohen
Administrative Judge
Chairman
I concur:
David I. Brochstein
Administrative Judge
Vice Chairman