In the Matter of a Mail Dispute Between

DAVID S. RITHOLTZ, DDS, PC

and

DALE D. GOLDSCHLAG, DDS, PC

P.S. Docket No. MD 03-347

APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT DAVID S. RITHOLTZ, DDS, PC:
Noelle Kowalczyk, Esq.
Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, LLP
1633 Broadway
New York, NY  10019-6799

APPEARANCE FOR DISPUTANT DALE D. GOLDSCHLAG, DDS, PC:
Adam B. Kaufman, Esq.
Adam B. Kaufman & Associates, PLLC
585 Stewart Avenue, Suite 302
Garden City, NY  11530-4701

POSTAL SERVICE DECISION

            On November 7, 2003, Disputant Dale D. Goldschlag, DDS, PC filed an appeal from an Initial Decision, in which an Administrative Law Judge concluded that all mail addressed to Dale D. Goldschlag, DDS, 150 Broadway, Room 1310, New York, NY 10038-4365 should be delivered as addressed.  Disputant David S. Ritholtz, DDS, PC, opposes the appeal. 

            As originally docketed, this mail dispute only placed mail addressed to Dale D. Goldschlag, DDS at the Broadway address in dispute.  Neither party advised the Administrative Law Judge that any additional mail was being held or was in dispute and the Initial Decision only determined the disposition of mail addressed to Dale D. Goldschlag, DDS.  On appeal, however, both parties appear to take the position that mail addressed to Dale D. Goldschlag, DDS, PC or Dale D. Goldschlag is also in dispute.  Therefore, the Judicial Officer has determined to exercise his discretion to modify the Initial Decision and consider mail to those additional names or any reasonable variation thereof to also be in dispute.

            Disputant Goldschlag has not otherwise shown that the Initial Decision is clearly erroneous or that any grounds exist for the Judicial Officer to reverse the Initial Decision.  Disputant Goldschlag was, by his own admission, working as an independent contractor for Disputant Ritholtz and, under applicable Postal Service regulations, mail addressed to a current or former contractor associated with an organization is to be delivered to the organization.  See Postal Operations Manual, Section 614.1;^[1] see also Walter R. O’Brien, M.D. and Daniel D. Hillman, M.D., P.S. Docket No. MD-128 (P.S.D. Nov. 19, 1991).  Since Disputant Ritholtz is the controlling professional corporation at the address in dispute, all mail to that address, regardless of whether it is addressed to Dr. Goldschlag individually or some reasonable variation thereof, should be delivered as addressed. 

            The parties are reminded that the purpose of a mail dispute proceeding is to determine the person or organization entitled to receive delivery of the mail, not ownership of the mail.  If either party receives mail intended for the other, that party is responsible for forwarding such mail to the intended recipient.

            Accordingly, the Initial Decision, as modified to include mail addressed to Dale D. Goldschlag, DDS, PC, Dale D. Goldschlag and any reasonable variation thereof, is the final agency decision as provided in 39 C.F.R. §965.12.

James A. Cohen
Judicial Officer

[1]  Section 614.1 of the Postal Operations Manual provides that “All mail addressed to a governmental or nongovernmental organization (including but not limited to corporations, firms, sole proprietorships, partnerships, joint ventures, and associations) or to an individual by name or title (an official, employee, contractor, client, agent, etc.) at the address of the organization is delivered to the organization.  This regulation also applies to mail addressed in this manner to former officials, employees, contractors, agents, clients, or others associated with the organization.  If disagreement arises about where any such mail should be delivered, it must be delivered according to the order of the organization’s president or equivalent official.” (POM Issue 9, July 2002, Updated With Postal Bulletin Revisions Through September 4, 2003).