The United States Postal Service has changed its postmark dating system which may affect time sensitive mailings

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 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. 

When Sega 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 party to decided whether or not to appeal an administrative ruling.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

Selected items from Internet blogs posted during the week ending March 27, 2026

Veterans Benefits Webinar Disabled veteran attorney Benjamin Krause educates veterans nationwide. Veterans can register for his April webinar and access free resources at disabledveterans.org. 

Introducing the City Manager Innovation Council Build trusted relationships with city leaders shaping priorities and investment decisions. Explore the Council

A Roadmap for Upgrading Resident Login and Access Modernizing how residents log in to government services doesn’t require a massive IT overhaul. This guide explains how state, provincial, and local agencies can introduce Customer Identity and Access Management (CIAM)—the systems that manage citizen registration, login, and multi-factor authentication—using a phased approach that works with existing platforms. DOWNLOAD

Why SD-WAN is the Future of Government Networking Government networks are under growing pressure as agencies adopt cloud services, deploy AI tools and deliver more digital services to residents. This paper explains why software-defined wide area networking (SD-WAN) is emerging as a critical foundation for modern government infrastructure, helping agencies increase capacity, strengthen security and reduce networking costs. DOWNLOAD

How AI-Powered Agents Streamline State and Local Service Delivery Explore how AI agents can help state and local governments handle routine tasks, streamline operations, and give staff more time for complex issues. DOWNLOAD

The H.R. 1 Mandate: Modernizing Medicaid and SNAP H.R. 1 adds substantial administrative obligations to Medicaid and food assistance programs. Learn why automation is essential to handle growing workloads and complexity. DOWNLOAD

What It Takes to Rebuild After Wildfires Discover how small teams leverage technology to deliver faster, more resilient disaster recovery. LISTEN NOW

Former Fire Company Treasurer pleads guilty to stealing almost $75,000 from the Fire Company

State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, Ontario County District Attorney Jason MacBride, and Ontario County Sheriff David Cirencione announced that Jill Havens, the former Treasurer of the Citizens Hose Company in Shortsville, pleaded guilty to felony theft of nearly $75,000 over a four-year period.

“Jill Havens not only exploited the trust of the members of the fire company who volunteer their time to protect their community, but her community which the company serves,” DiNapoli said. “She will now be held accountable for her crimes and the Company made whole. I thank District Attorney MacBride and Sheriff Cirencione for their partnerships in rooting out fraud.”

“Today marks an important step in moving forward for the Citizens Hose Company",   Cirencione said. “I am pleased Ms. Havens has taken responsibility for her actions and made a significant payment toward her restitution which will help the fire service in Shortsville fund necessary programs and equipment as intended. My thanks to now retired Inv. Doug Smith who spent countless hours pouring over financial records and interviewing witnesses in order to make an arrest in this case.  Comptroller DiNapoli and his staff were instrumental in assisting us throughout this investigation. District Attorney Jason MacBride has now held Ms. Havens accountable for this significant theft.  We encourage anyone who suspects that fraudulent activity is occurring in any non-profit or service organization to report it.” 

Members of the Citizens Hose Fire Company alerted the Ontario County Sheriff’s Office and the Ontario County District Attorney’s Office when they suspected money was being stolen from the company. A joint investigation was then launched by DiNapoli’s Office, Ontario County Sheriff’s Office and the Ontario County District Attorney’s Office. 

Havens served as the fire company’s treasurer from 2018 through August 2022. As treasurer she had access to the company’s bank account and credit card. Investigators found she issued unauthorized checks and made personal purchases with fire company funds, then altered the company’s financial records to conceal her crime. She used the money to pay off her credit cards, make retail purchases, and to pay for online video games.

Haven’s predecessor at the hose company was convicted of grand larceny in 2019, after an investigation by DiNapoli found that she had embezzled over $24,000 in company funds. In 2020, the Comptroller issued an audit report recommending various measures to enhance internal controls at the company.

Havens pled guilty to grand larceny in the second degree in Ontario County Court, in front of Judge Gregory McCaffery. She paid $40,000 in restitution today with the remainder due at sentencing. 

###

Since taking office in 2007, DiNapoli has committed to fighting public corruption and encourages the public to help fight fraud and abuse. New Yorkers can report allegations of fraud involving taxpayer money by calling the toll-free Fraud Hotline at 1-888-672-4555, by filing a complaint online at investigations@osc.ny.gov, or by mailing a complaint to: Office of the State Comptroller, Division of Investigations, 8th Floor, 110 State St., Albany, NY 12236.

Failing to name all necessary parties to the litigation is fatal to petitioner's cause of action

In this action Supreme Court denied Plaintiff's petition seeking, among other things, a writ of mandamus compelling New York City Health and Hospitals Corp. [Corporation] to appoint Plaintiff to the position of Senior Stationary Engineer [SSE]. Plaintiff's petition, however, failed to name all necessary parties* involved and Supreme Court  granted the Corporation's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's petition. Plaintiff appealed but the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's ruling, without costs.

The Appellate Division, noting Petitioner had not shown that the administration of the SSE examination violated the merit and fitness clause of the New York State Constitution or that it was arbitrary, capricious, or violated due process, opined that Supreme Court had "providently granted" the Corporation's motion and dismissed the proceeding on the ground that Petitioner failed to join all the necessary parties.

Petitioner did not dispute the argument that the applicants who passed the SSE examination and were promoted to the position of SSE would be "inequitably affected by a judgment" in Petitioner's favor or contend that the examination's content or its administration was unconstitutional or in violation of law. However, Petitioner only named one applicant for the SSE position in his petition and, in the words of the Appellate Division, "did not identify any of [the] other necessary parties to this proceeding, rendering it impossible to bring the parties before the court."

* A necessary party is a party whose interests could be adversely affected by the outcome of the relevant litigation.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.

Termination of a probationary employee during the individual's probationary period

The New York City Department of Correction (DOC) terminated an employee from her non-competitive class position without notice and hearing. DOC subsequently reinstated the employee but rejected her request for backpay, whereupon the employee sued DOC for the back pay she claimed was due her.

Although the parties disputed whether Petitioner had completed her probationary period by the date of her discharge, the Appellate Division said it need not resolve that dispute because, even if Petitioner had completed her probationary period, she would not have been entitled to a pretermination hearing under the Civil Service Law, which affords tenure protections to employees serving in non-competitive class titles only once they have completed at least five years of continuous service.

Citing Civil Service Law §77, the Appellate Division held that "Because petitioner was not discharged in violation of the Civil Service Law, there is no basis to order her reinstated with backpay." 

With respect to termination of a probationary employee prior end of his or her maximum period of probation in York v McGuire, 63 NY2d 760, the Court of Appeals set out the basic rules concerning the dismissal of probationary employees as follows: 

“After completing his or her minimum period of probation and prior to completing his or her maximum period of probation, a probationary employee can be dismissed without a hearing and without a statement of reasons, as long as there is no proof that the dismissal was done for a constitutionally impermissible purpose, or in violation of statutory or decisional law, or the decision was made in bad faith”. 

As a general rule, a "permanent" appointment to a position in the classified service takes effect on the date of the individual's appointment subject to the individual's successful completion of their required probationary but the individual does not attain tenure in the position until:

[a] he or she satisfactorily completes his or her maximum period of probation or 

[b] the appointing authority lawfully truncated the individual's maximum period of probation or 

[c] the individual is found to have attained tenure by estoppel. 

Further, in the event a probationer is absent due to “ordered military service,” his or her military service is to be credited “as satisfactory service” for the purpose of completing his or her probationary period if he or she is honorably discharged or released from active duty*. This means that an individual may satisfy his or her probationary period requirements while on serving ordered military duty. 

If the individual is appointed or promoted to a position while on military duty, his or her military service is also to be counted as “satisfactory service” for the purposes of probation upon honorable discharge or release from active duty.

* See §§242 and 243 of the New York State Military Law.

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision in the instant matter posted on the Internet.