April 16, 2004
Appeal of
TRUST OF ANTHONY J. PENACHIO, SR.
LEASE AGREEMENT
(Formerly Springdale Station, Stamford, CT )
PSBCA No. 4965
APPEARANCE FOR APPELLANT:
Joanne Carriero
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
Jeannine H. Rice, Esq.
OPINION OF THE BOARD
Appellant, Trust of Anthony J. Penachio, Sr., has appealed from the denial of five monetary claims asserted under its lease with Respondent, United States Postal Service. Appellant has elected to have its appeal processed under the Board’s Accelerated procedures, and, at the request of both parties, the appeal is being considered on the written record without an oral hearing, in accordance with 39 C.F.R. §§ 955.13(d) and 955.12. Only entitlement is at issue.
1. Respondent leased from Appellant the premises at 1004 Hope Street, Stamford, Connecticut, known as the Springdale Station, from May 1, 1954 through April 30, 2002 (Appeal File, Tabs (“AF”) 1, 2; Joint Stipulations, Numbers (“Stipulation”) 1-4, 7).
2. The leased premises comprised a one-story, free-standing building; a loading platform; a partial basement of 634 square feet;[1] exclusive-use parking and maneuvering areas; and a joint-use driveway (also called an “alleyway”) (Lease, AF 2, Provisions 1, 4, 9 (pp. 3, 4); Stipulation 7). The premises fronted on a city street with a sidewalk and, on the alleyway side, were adjacent to a commercial laundry (ARE, p. 2; AF 7, p.1; Appellant’s Additional Evidence, Tab (“AAE”) B, pp. 7, 4, 22; Statement of Leonard Carriero, AAE E (“AAE E (L. Carriero)”), p. 6).
3. The Springdale Station consisted of a carrier route processing area (the “work area”) in the rear portion of the building and a small retail postal unit in the front of the facility (RAE 13 (Ryan), ¶ 4).
4. Pursuant to paragraph a of the lease’s Maintenance Rider:
“The Lessor shall, except as otherwise specified herein and except for damage resulting from the negligence of Postal Service agents or employees, maintain the demised premises, including the building and any and all equipment, fixtures, and appurtenances, whether severable or non-severable, furnished by the Lessor under this lease, in good repair and tenantable condition.”
(Maintenance Rider, Lessor Responsibility, AF 2, p. 21).
5. Pursuant to the lease, Appellant was required to furnish and pay for specified utilities and associated equipment, including sewerage and water systems and service for both. The lease did not specify that Appellant would furnish air conditioning ("A/C"), but an A/C unit had been installed in the work area before the final renewal of the lease on May 1, 1997 and Appellant had serviced the unit. Pursuant to General Condition (“GC”) A.24, Lessor Obligations, the A/C equipment provided was to be in good working order and maintained by Appellant in accordance with the lease’s Maintenance Rider. (AF 2, pp. 4 (Provision 6), 21, and 14 (GC A.24); AAE A, p. 3; AF 11, item 30, pp. 2, 5‑6; AAE C, p. 7).
6. The lease did not specifically assign custodial (janitorial) maintenance responsibilities for the interior or exterior of the leased premises to either Appellant or Respondent and did not address custodial standards for the premises (see AF 2). However, at all times relevant to the disputes herein, Respondent and Appellant acted as though Respondent were responsible for custodial maintenance of the interior and exterior and Respondent had performed custodial maintenance throughout its lease until it vacated the premises in December 2000. Included within the scope of maintenance thus performed was the removal of refuse, fallen leaves, ice and snow from the grounds. (AAE I, p. 13; Emails of James A. Hickey, Attachments to Declaration of Lillian M. Esposito, RAE, Tab 15 (“RAE 15 (Esposito)”), ¶¶ 4-6 and pp. 10-12; AF 11, Item 26, p. 2; AF 8; AAE B, pp. 3, 9, 12; AAE D, pp. 2-3, 7-8; Findings of Fact Nos. ("Findings") 14, 19).
7. During the lease period, Appellant could enter non-public areas of the premises only by arranging with Respondent to do so. Before the closing of the post office, Appellant could enter the non-public work area only if escorted by Respondent's personnel. (RAE 15 (Esposito), ¶ 3; AAE C, pp. 2, 4; AAE D, p. 15 (Email of James A. Hickey, 12‑8‑2000); ARE, p. 5; AAE A, p. 6; AAE G, p. 1).
8. The Postal Service elected to close the Springdale Station about nineteen months before the lease expired and had completely vacated the building by the end of December 2000. The lease remained in effect, and the building empty, until expiration of the lease on April 30, 2002. (AF 3; AAE D, pp. 1, 8, 12; Stipulation 7, 10, 12, 22).
Leaking Toilet and Excess Water Usage
9. During a January 1998 visit to the premises, Appellant’s representatives discovered that a toilet float valve in the men’s room located in the work area had been forcibly “bent,” or “pulled,” upward by a person unknown, allowing water to run continuously and quite audibly through the toilet. Appellant’s plumber repaired the toilet after Appellant’s representatives showed the problem to Respondent’s Station Manager. (Stipulation 18; Statement of Anthony J. Penachio, Jr., AAE E (“AAE E (A.J. Penachio, Jr.)”), p. 3; AAE G, pp. 4-6; AAE C, pp. 3‑4; ARE, pp. 4, 6; AF 10, pp. 8-10; AAE I, pp. 13-14; see RAE 13 (Ryan), ¶¶ 6-7; Declaration of George Fisher, RAE 14 (“RAE 14 (Fisher)”), ¶ 4).
10. By letter dated March 3, 1998 to the Officer-in-Charge and/or Postmaster in Stamford Connecticut with responsibility for the Springdale Station, Appellant forwarded the plumber’s bill for the above toilet repair and also requested reimbursement for excess water usage caused by the toilet problem. The water usage in the facility during the affected billing period, November 18, 1997 through February 17, 1998, was much greater than in comparable time periods in the preceding five-years. (AF 10, pp. 8-17; ARE, pp. 4‑6; RAE 14 (Fisher), ¶ 1).
11. After submitting the March 3, 1998 letter, Appellant made a number of follow-up calls to the Postal Service about the leaking toilet issue, but no responses were forthcoming and no payment was made[2] (AAE C; AAE I, p. 14; ARE, p. 4). Appellant made no further written submissions regarding the leaky toilet until April 2002, at which time it submitted the consolidated claim for some thirty-one items of damage and/or custodial deficiencies, including the excess water usage and the toilet repair (AAE C, pp. 3-4; AF 10, 11; Stipulation 19; Finding 27).
Closing of Springdale Station – Custodial Maintenance Problems
12. After vacating the premises (Finding 8), Respondent acknowledged its continuing responsibility for custodial maintenance, heating, and security of the premises (Finding 6; AAE B, p. 7; Emails by James A. Hickey: AAE D, p. 15 (12-8-2000); AAE D, p. 8 (11-21-2000); and RAE 15 (Esposito), p. 10 (2‑6‑2002); Email by L. Esposito, AAE D, p. 17 (1-10-2001); see Email by James A. Hickey, RAE 15, p. 9 (9-11-2001)).
13. After vacating the premises, Respondent failed to perform its custodial responsibilities for the exterior of the facility. Commencing after a meeting of the parties to inspect the premises on March 15, 2001, Appellant, from time to time through expiration of the lease on April 30, 2002, orally and persistently complained to Respondent that it was not fulfilling its responsibilities for providing the exterior custodial maintenance. (RAE 15 (Esposito), ¶¶ 4, 5 and pp. 8-12; AF 8; AAE B, pp. 2‑5, 9; AAE E (L. Carriero), p. 5; AAE G, p. 3; AAE I, p. 13; ARE, pp. 7‑10).
14. Respondent acted upon some of Appellant’s requests for additional custodial work, in piecemeal fashion, but failed to complete the exterior work at times relevant to the claims herein for exterior custodial work (RAE 15 (Esposito), ¶ 5 and pp. 8‑12; AAE B, pp. 2‑3, 9‑10; AAE G, p. 3).
15. On August 19, 2001 and on September 9, 2001, one of Appellant’s trustees raked, shoveled, swept and hauled leaves, dirt, debris and garbage from the outside of the vacant premises, including part of the alleyway (AF 8, p. 1; AAE B, p. 4; AAE E (L. Carriero), p. 6; see AAE I, p. 3; AF 11, p. 4). Appellant performed this work in order to make the areas around the building safe for pedestrian traffic. Appellant did not notify Respondent in advance of doing the work. (ARE, pp. 7, 9-10; see RAE 15 (Esposito), p. 9; AAE E (L. Carriero), p. 6).
16. Appellant removed only part of the debris in the alleyway. Therefore, because it had long been receiving complaints from neighbors about conditions in the alleyway and along the fence, both in telephone calls and at a meeting on September 17, 2001 with Postal Service officials, Appellant asked that the remaining debris in the alleyway be removed. At the meeting, Respondent agreed to perform the work. (AAE B, p. 9; see RAE 15 (Esposito), p. 9).
17. On January 15, 2002, Appellant devoted additional time to shoveling and hauling away four barrels of wet leaves mixed with fallen snow and ice from in front of the building. This combination was a hazard to pedestrians in a busy area. Appellant did not notify Respondent in advance of performing the work. (ARE, pp. 4, 10; AAE B, p. 4; AAE E (L. Carriero), p. 6; AAE I, pp. 13, 3; AF 8, p. 1; AF 11, p. 4).
18. Appellant received an Order from the City of Stamford on January 31, 2002, noticing Appellant, as owner of the premises, that leaves and other debris in the alleyway were considered a harborage for rodents, in violation of the State of Connecticut Public Health Code and City law, and that this debris was to be removed by noon, February 8, 2002 (AF 8, pp. 3-4). The debris described in the Order was in a part of the alleyway not previously cleaned by Appellant (ARE, p. 10; see Findings 15-16).
19. Appellant immediately notified Respondent of the City’s Order and provided a copy to the Postal Service (AF 8, 9). Without objecting, Respondent cleaned up to the City’s satisfaction (AF 15 (Esposito), ¶ 6 and pp. 10-12; AAE B, pp. 2-5, 11‑12, 15; ARE, p. 10).
Debris Left in Interior of the Premises
20. After the lease expired at the end of April 2002, a few items of debris remained in the unfinished portion of the basement that was not under lease to the Postal Service (Attachments to Complaint, Photographs Debris–1 through Debris–4;[3] AF 10, p. 3 (3d item); AAE A, pp. 3, 6; AAE E (A.J. Penachio, Jr.), p. 1; AAE I, p. 13; ARE, p. 5). Respondent did not remove the debris despite requests by Appellant that this be done (AAE A, p. 3). Appellant later arranged, through a provision in the new lease, for the successor lessee to dispose of this debris (AAE H, p. 12).
21. Although only the finished part of the basement was included in the lease (Finding 2, footnote 1), the entire basement was accessible solely through an exterior door leading to the leased portion, to which Respondent possessed the only keys (RAE 13 (Ryan), ¶ 8; AAE E, p. 4; AF 12, pp. 1-2; ARE, p. 5; AAE C, p. 2).
Damaged Work-Area Flooring
22. Mail was transported inside the building six days per week, to and from the loading dock at the rear of the building and around the work area in which carriers sorted the mail for delivery. Before and after the final renewal of the lease in 1997, mail was carried over the work-area floor on various types of rolling equipment (“mail carts”). The rated capacities of the equipment ranged up to 1,200 pounds for the largest mail carts. (RAE 13 (Ryan), ¶¶ 4-5, and Attachment A thereto). The flooring in the work area, comprising tile laid on solid maple wood subflooring (AAE A, p. 1), had not been repaired or replaced for at least thirteen years prior to the time Respondent vacated the premises in late 2000 (RAE 13 (Ryan), ¶ 3; ARE, p. 4; RAE 16, p. 3).
23. Damage to the flooring in the work area was evident by, at latest, about 1987 (ARE, p. 4; see AAE E (A.J. Penachio, Jr.), p. 2).
24. When Respondent vacated the premises, missing floor tiles in several places in the work area were the predominant damage. Underlying subflooring was darkened and heavily marked in mail-cart travel areas, and some limited, ill-defined amount of gouging of the subflooring had occurred. Tiles also were missing in portions of the work area outside the mail-cart travel areas, but wear of the subflooring was not apparent in these places. (Color photographs Floor–1‑7, 9, 11 (attachments to the Complaint; see footnote 3, above); AAE E (A.J. Penachio, Jr.), pp. 1-2; AAE E (L. Carriero), p. 7; AF 11, Item 15, p. 3; AAE A, pp. 1‑2; ARE, pp. 3-4, 11-12 (explaining the Photographs at Floor–4 and 6)). The damage to the work-area floor was a type of wear that was not unusual for postal facility floors that had been in use for a long period of time (Declaration of John W. Nielsen, RAE 17, ¶ 3; see ARE, pp. 4, 12; AAE A, p. 2).
25. Additional damage occurred to the flooring in an area beneath and near the A/C unit on the main floor of the building. Because of leaks from a valve under the A/C unit, the wood subflooring around the unit had rotted and had to be removed. (AF 12, p. 1; AAE A, p. 3; AAE G, p. 2; Photographs Floor–10, 12-16). Removal of the rotted wood left an 8’ x 2’3” hole in the subflooring (AAE I, p. 12; Photographs Floor–12, 13).
26. Respondent did not ever inform Appellant of the leak or the rotted wood and the record does not show that Respondent either knew or should have known of these conditions. It is uncertain just when Appellant discovered them, but apparently it made the discovery shortly before the lease expired and first mentioned the conditions to Respondent in the claim of April 16, 2002. (AF 10, pp. 4-5; AF 11, Item 30, Repair floor at HVAC unit, pp. 5-6; AAE A, p. 3).
Appellant’s Claims
27. On April 16, 2002, just prior to expiration of the lease, Appellant submitted a written request to the Facilities Service Office that Respondent reimburse Appellant and/or correct more than thirty items relating to the condition of the premises, including removal of accumulated debris from the interior and from the exterior grounds of the premises (AF 10; Stipulation 19).
28. By letter dated May 14, 2002, the contracting officer responded to Appellant’s requests for reimbursement. Respondent acknowledged responsibility for a number of the claimed items and authorized payment of $4,600 for these, while denying responsibility for the remaining items and noting that the leaking-toilet claim was not timely. The contracting officer denominated the letter an appealable final decision pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 and the lease’s Claims and Disputes clause. (AF 11; Stipulation 20).
29. By letter of July 30, 2002, Appellant timely appealed to this Board, through the contracting officer, from the above final decision with respect to the five denied claim items addressed below (Notice of Appeal).
DECISION
Appellant here asserts five money claims, three based upon damages to the leased premises and the others for failures by Respondent to fulfill its responsibilities for custodial maintenance and to remove debris from the premises at expiration of the lease. For each of these, Appellant bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it is entitled to recover for the actions or inactions of the Postal Service or its agents. T. W. Cole, PSBCA No. 3076, 92-3 BCA ¶ 25,091. Where, as here, quantum is not in issue, to establish liability, Appellant must “demonstrate that entitlement ‘is not purely academic; that some damage has been incurred.’ [citations omitted]” Port-A-Built, PSBCA No. 3134, 94-2 BCA ¶ 26,694 at 132,768; see John J. Koutsos, Peter J. Koutsos, PSBCA No. 4533, 01-2 BCA ¶ 31,581.
A. Repair of Toilet and Excess Water Usage
Appellant claims entitlement to reimbursement for a one-time repair to the maladjusted float valve of a toilet in the facility, on the basis that an unidentified employee of Respondent acted deliberately in a manner that damaged the toilet. Appellant further claims that water was wasted because Respondent failed to report to Appellant obvious leakage through the damaged toilet, and seeks to recover the resulting increases in its water bills.
Respondent asserts that its defense of these claims was so hindered by Appellant’s delay in asserting them that the claims are barred by the defense of laches. Respondent also asserts that Appellant may not recover because maintenance of the toilet was the lessor’s responsibility under the Maintenance Rider of the lease and because no act of negligence by Respondent’s employees was proved.
Respondent was provided notice of the claim at the time it arose, through the officials with whom Appellant dealt on a daily basis and who had previously paid similar small claims. These officials were fully informed of the facts but did not act on them, despite oral follow-up actions by Appellant shortly after submitting the request for payment. (Findings 10, 11). As Respondent was on notice of the claim and has not otherwise shown that it was materially prejudiced in defending the claim, its laches defense has not been proved. See JANA, Inc. v. United States, 936 F.2d 1265, 1269-1270 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1030 (1992).
Appellant’s evidence establishes that the float valve on the men’s room toilet, which was in an area within the sole custody and control of Respondent, was most probably damaged by a deliberate act of an employee of the Postal Service (Findings 9, 7). Respondent’s unsupported argument that the damage might have resulted from a mechanical malfunction is rejected.
The damage to the toilet caused the noticeably noisy and continuous overflow of water through the toilet. The failure of Respondent’s employees to report the noisy water leak was also negligent and resulted in excess water usage. (Findings 9, 10). Therefore, Respondent is liable for the costs that resulted from the damage to the toilet and the excess water usage caused by its negligence. Paoli Plaza Investment Corp., PSBCA Nos. 3711, 4057, 98-1 BCA ¶ 29,445 at 146,186, recon. denied, 98-1 BCA ¶ 29,687; T.W. Cole, supra, 92-3 BCA at 125,078; see William Fehn, PSBCA No. 2302, 89-2 BCA ¶ 21,663.
B. Replacement of Work-Area Flooring
Appellant claims the cost of replacing the flooring in the work area of the building, contending that excessive wear and damage to the flooring and wood subflooring were caused by the negligence of Respondent. Appellant also claims for replacement of a section of subflooring that rotted because of prolonged exposure to water from a leaking A/C unit, which leaking, according to Appellant, Respondent negligently failed to report for repair.
The tile flooring in the work area had not been repaired or replaced for at least thirteen years and was damaged by long use, which included the use of heavily loaded mail carts. The use of mail carts certainly was contemplated by the parties for at least thirteen years, and probably longer, and was well known to them at the time the final lease was entered in 1997. Damage to the flooring was evident by about 1987 and, considering the continuing use of the facility, certainly became worse over time until the Postal Service vacated the premises in December 2000. (Findings 3, 8, 22-24).
Appellant was responsible for maintaining and repairing the flooring pursuant to the lease’s Maintenance Rider. Absent evidence of specific negligent acts by Respondent’s employees or agents, Appellant is not entitled to recover.[4] See J. Leonard Spodek Nationwide Postal Management, PSBCA No. 4223, 99-2 BCA ¶ 30,559 at 150,918.
Further, Respondent’s evidence that the damage to the flooring was consistent with conditions in other Postal Service facilities that had been in use for long periods of time (Finding 24) is persuasive and reinforces our conclusion that Appellant has not borne its burden of proving negligence by Respondent in use of the facility’s work area. Appellant thus has failed to prove that the damage to the floor, accumulated over many years, was not ordinary wear and tear and its claim for replacement of the flooring is denied.
Appellant also claims for damage to the 8’ x 2’3” section of the wooden subflooring that rotted due to exposure to water leaking from the A/C unit (Finding 25). Appellant apparently discovered the rotted condition of the wood and its cause, the water leak at a valve under the A/C unit, only near the end of the lease on April 30, 2002, some sixteen months after Respondent had vacated the premises (Findings 26, 8). Appellant concedes that it was responsible for maintenance of the A/C unit, but the only basis urged by Appellant, or otherwise apparent from the record, for holding Respondent liable for the damage is that Respondent was in control of the premises while the damage progressed, but negligently failed to report the water leak.
The record contains no evidence that Respondent knew or should have known of the water leak or the progressive rotting of the subflooring prior to receiving Appellant’s claim of April 16, 2002. Neither does the record establish that Respondent had a duty to inspect the A/C unit or to discover the leaking valve and/or progressing water damage. See J. Leonard Spodek d/b/a Nationwide Postal Management, PSBCA Nos. 3833, 3941, 97-2 BCA ¶ 29,273; Crist Trucking, Inc., PSBCA No. 592 (October 31, 1979), 1979 PSBCA LEXIS 51. We therefore deny Appellant’s claim for the costs of removing and replacing the rotted subflooring.
C. Debris at the Exterior
Appellant seeks to recover for the three occasions on which it removed debris around the exterior of the premises. Appellant contends that, because Respondent failed to remove the debris, Appellant was entitled to use self-help to promote cleanliness and safety and to avoid liability of Appellant for injury to persons caused by the unsafe conditions. Respondent argues that Appellant has not established the existence of the alleged conditions and did not provide Respondent notice of the conditions and wait a reasonable time for Respondent to act before engaging in self-help to ameliorate the conditions.
Respondent performed custodial maintenance of the premises throughout its many years of occupancy and acknowledged its responsibility for such maintenance at all times relevant to the claims (Findings 6, 12, 14, 16, 19). The parties' interpretation before the dispute arose is accorded special deference in interpreting contract terms. Real Properties MLP Limited Partnership, PSBCA No. 3453, 95-2 BCA ¶ 27,829 at 138,755, citing, inter alia, Julius Goldman's Egg City v. United States, 697 F.2d 1051, 1058 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 814 (1983). On this basis, we find that the Postal Service was responsible for custodial maintenance of the premises until expiration of the lease and on most occasions had performed such work.
On three occasions, Appellant performed custodial work that was the Postal Service’s responsibility. In August and September 2001, Appellant cleaned up leaves, debris and garbage from the joint-use alleyway in order to abate conditions that were unsafe for pedestrians and provided harborage for rodents (Finding 15; see Findings 2, 18). Then, in January 2002, Appellant cleaned up, from the pedestrian walkway in front of the building, wet leaves mixed with snow and ice (Finding 17), which made for a dangerous icy condition on the sidewalk fronting the building. Appellant’s cleanups were necessary for the safety of passersby and were reasonable. Appellant had repeatedly notified Respondent that this outside custodial work was required and Respondent, nevertheless, breached its obligation to perform the work within a reasonable time. (Findings 13, 14, 16, 18). Appellant is entitled to recover the costs that it incurred in performing the work.[5]
D. Debris in the Basement
Appellant claims that Respondent abandoned debris in the basement upon expiration of the lease and should reimburse Appellant for the cost of removal. Respondent asserts that the debris was situated in an area of the basement that was not under lease and that the debris was not shown to have been left there by Respondent.
A small amount of debris remained in the basement at expiration of the lease, but its source is not established in the record and either party might be responsible for its presence there. Respondent had day-to-day possession and custody of the premises, including the entire basement, for almost forty-eight years and was responsible for custodial maintenance of the leased premises. (Findings 6, 7, 20, 21). Under these circumstances, we consider it appropriate to shift to Respondent the burden of showing that Appellant was responsible for the presence of the debris before allowing Respondent to avoid its responsibilities in this instance.[6] See Cardel Leasing, PSBCA No. 3223, 93-2 BCA ¶ 25,740 at 129,818, aff’d. on recon., 93‑3 BCA ¶ 26,117. In view of its long-term control of the premises, Respondent’s argument that the debris was located in a portion of the basement that was not under lease, while true, is not considered dispositive, particularly since the portion not under lease was physically accessible only from the leased portion, which latter portion was directly accessible through the sole exterior door (Finding 21).
As the evidence of record does not establish which party was responsible for the presence of the debris, Respondent has not met its burden. In this entitlement-only proceeding, Appellant has demonstrated that it more likely than not incurred some removal costs by virtue of the fact that the lease with its new tenant required that tenant to remove the debris (Finding 20). Therefore, Respondent is liable for the debris removal costs that Appellant is able to prove on remand.
Summary
The appeal is sustained to the extent found above, and is otherwise denied. The matter is remanded to the parties for the negotiation of quantum.
Jon N. Kulish
Administrative Judge
Chairman
[1] The leased basement area comprised two rooms and was adjacent to a much larger, unfinished basement area apparently extending under the entire footprint of the building. This unfinished basement area was separated from the two rooms on the lease by a three-quarter-height wall. (Declaration of Adele Ryan, Respondent’s Additional Evidence, Tab 13 (“RAE 13 (Ryan)”), ¶ 8; Appellant’s Rebuttal Evidence (“ARE”), pp. 5-6).
[2] One of the co-trustees of Appellant had believed that Respondent might make payment from local funds without Appellant filing a claim directly with the contracting officer, as had been done previously for other small items of Respondent-caused damage.
[3] Appellant requested that the Board consider twenty color photographs, including the four listed above and Floor–1 through Floor–16 (see Finding 24, below), all of which are attached to its Complaint. These photographs, but not the handwritten characterizations by Appellant thereon, are accepted into the record based upon Stipulation 21 and authentications by Appellant, submitted at AAE A (Joanne Carriero), pp. 1‑3, 6; AAE E (A.J. Penachio, Jr.), pp. 1-2; and AAE E (L. Carriero), pp. 6-7.
[4] Appellant, which also owned the building next door, used for forty-seven years as a commercial laundry, represented that the floor in that building was not ever damaged by the laundry carts which were in use six days each week and were much heavier than Respondent’s mail carts (ARE, pp. 2-3). Even accepting this, however, without evidence of the specific composition of each of the building’s floors and more definite evidence of the loadings imposed on the respective floors, we cannot draw the requested inference that the condition of the Springdale Station floor must have been the product of Respondent’s negligence.
[5] See gen. Greater Eastern Holding Co., PSBCA No. 1128, 83-2 BCA ¶ 16,784 at 83,429 (lease provision requiring the Postal Service to make repairs was enforced upon breach, even though this was prior to expiration of the lease).
[6] Respondent was obligated to remove its personal property and clear out its debris when vacating the premises upon expiration of the lease. Friedman on Leases (4th ed. 1997), § 18.1, at 1189-90, citing, e.g., United States Gypsum Co. v. Schiavo Bros., Inc., 668 F.2d 172, 176-178 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 961 (1982); 23 A.L.R. 2d 655 (1952); see 49 Am. Jur. 2d Landlord and Tenant § 846 (1970).