The United States Postal Service [USPS] modified its postmark system used to indicate when it "took possession" of the mail entrusted to it for delivery to the addressee effective December 24, 2025.
Postmarking at a local post offices is being discontinued in certain areas and a USPS machine-applied postmark system is being used to at USPS processing centers to indicate the date USPS took possession of mail for delivery to the addressee. As a result, the postmarks applied at a processing facility may be later than the date the mail piece was actually first received by the USPS at a local post office.
This discrepancy is expected to become more common due to the implementation of the USPS' "Regional Transportation Optimization" [RTO] initiative. The adoption of such a centralized service for affixing postmarks reporting the date when USPS "accepted" the mail piece may become of concern where the mail being sent to an addressee is subject to a statute of limitations or other time sensitive limitations for posting to the addressee in order to qualify as a valid timely posting.
To assure a postmark is applied on the same day a document is accepted by the USPS for processing, individuals may be required to use local USPS retail services that will require the USPS postal patron to present the mail piece at a USPS retail counter and request the postal clerk to place a local postmark "manually" on the item being mailed. As the postmark would be applied at the time of acceptance of the piece of mail by the postal clerk, the date of the postmark is evidence of the item being in the possession of the USPS for delivery of the item having been timely mailed.
In the alternative, USPS had indicated that:
a. When a customer pays for postage at a retail counter, the postage stamp would cancelled by postal clerk and indicate the date it was accepted by the UPSP or a PVI label would be used by the postal clerk to indicate that the mailed item was accepted by the USPS for delivery; or
b. If the postal patron uses Registered or Certified Mail, the receipt the patron receives for using such service will provide the date the item was accepted by USPS for mailing,
The date the item was posted is critical should it become necessary to demonstrated that certain mail such a tax return, a tax payment, a mail ballot or other "time sensitive" mailings was timely made should it become a legal issue.
As to New York case law addressing this type of situation, in McLaughlin v Saga Corporation, 242 AD2d 393, a case involving an appeal seeking workers' compensation benefits filed with the New York State Workers' Compensation Appeals Board [WCB], the Appellate Division initially took the position that an appeal is untimely if it is found to have been physically received by the appellate body after the statute of limitations had passed.
Initially the Appellate Division held that although the appeal was mailed within the 30-day period allowed for filing the application seeking Workers' Compensation benefits if the WCB physically receive the item at issue after the statute of limitations had passed it was untimely.
In Saga when claimant sought permission to appeal the Appellate Division's decision, the Court elected to reconsider its ruling. It then reversed its initial ruling, holding that it is the date the USPS accepted the mail for processing, rather than the date of receipt by the addressee, that controls in determining the timeliness of an administrative appeal.
In the words of the Court:
"Because [the date the appeal was due] fell upon a Saturday, however, the time limit was automatically extended to Monday, February 7, 1994 (see General Construction Law §25-a), the date upon which claimant's application for Board review was, in fact, mailed. This was sufficient to satisfy the time limitation of Workers' Compensation Law §23 despite the fact that the application for Board review was not actually filed with the Board until February 15, 1994."
The Appellate Division then explained it issued its revised ruling after concluding that if a party has a statutory right to make a decision, which may be then filed by mail, this period would necessarily be shortened if the appellate body could insist that it physically receive the mailed notice no later than the last day of the period of limitation.
The Court concluded that the method of service of a notice of appeal, by mail or by personal delivery, should not determine the time period available to the claimant to decided whether or not to appeal an administrative ruling.
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.