March 13, 2006

 

Appeal of

 

J. LEONARD SPODEK

NATIONWIDE POSTAL MANAGEMENT

 

LEASE AGREEMENT

PSBCA No. 5231

 

APPEARANCE FOR APPELLANT:

J. Leonard Spodek

Nationwide Postal Management

 

APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:

Carrie M. Branson, Esq.

St. Louis Law Office

United States Postal Service

 

OPINION OF THE BOARD ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

 

Appellant, J. Leonard Spodek, has filed a motion for reconsideration of the Board's October 21, 2005 decision denying his appeal of the contracting officer's refusal to reimburse Appellant for real estate taxes paid in connection with his lease of the Emerson, Nebraska Main Post Office to Respondent, United States Postal Service.  J. Leonard Spodek, Nationwide Postal Management, PSBCA No. 5231, 05-2 BCA 33,112.  Respondent opposes the motion.

Under Appellant's lease, Respondent agreed to reimburse Appellant for real estate taxes levied against the property, but provided "[t]he Postal Service is not required to reimburse paid taxes unless the request for reimbursement is made within 18 months after the close of the tax year."  Appellant requested  reimbursement of the 2001 real estate taxes for the Emerson Post Office at the earliest on July 7, 2003.  In its decision, the Board found that the 2001 tax year in Nebraska closed on December 31, 2001, and Appellant's reimbursement request was made more than 18 months after the close of the tax year and therefore was untimely.

In his motion, Appellant repeats previously made arguments that the language in the lease was ambiguous and that, in the interest of uniformity, the Board should have found that the "close of the tax year" language referred to the last date on which the taxes could have been paid before being delinquent, which was in September 2002.  The arguments Appellant makes in this motion for reconsideration were previously raised and were fully considered in the Board's decision, and their repetition is not a basis for reconsideration.  See The General Store, PSBCA No. 3951, 99-1 BCA 30,124.  Further, Appellant has not shown any factual or legal errors that would warrant changing the decision, or raised any newly discovered or unavailable evidence that would support reconsideration.  See Gary W. Noble, PSBCA No. 4094, 00-1 BCA 30,602; Patricia J. Stevens, PSBCA No. 3272, 94-2 BCA 26,951; Montgomery-Ross-Fisher, PSBCA No. 1096, 84-3 BCA 17,607.

Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is denied and the Board's Opinion is affirmed.

 

David I. Brochstein

Administrative Judge

Acting Chairman

 

 

I concur:

 

Norman D. Menegat

Administrative Judge

Board Member