In the Matter of the Claim of Emma Caruso, 49 N.Y.2d 922 (1980)

In administrative proceedings, a rebuttable presumption of receipt of a mailed notice arises only when there is evidence of an established and regularly followed office procedure designed to ensure proper addressing and mailing.

Summary

This case concerns whether a claimant for unemployment insurance benefits was properly notified of a determination regarding her claim. The referee found that the claimant was mailed a notice of determination, and because she failed to request a hearing within 30 days, her request was deemed untimely. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board adopted the referee’s findings. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that there was no evidence to support the finding that the notice was actually mailed. The court emphasized that proof of a regular office procedure for mailing is required to create a presumption of receipt.

Facts

Emma Caruso filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits. The Industrial Commissioner contended that Caruso’s request for a hearing regarding her claim was untimely because she failed to request it within 30 days of the mailing of the notice of determination. The referee found that a notice of determination was mailed to Caruso on January 7, 1976.

Procedural History

The referee sustained the Industrial Commissioner’s contention that Caruso’s request for a hearing was untimely. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board adopted the referee’s findings. Caruso appealed to the Appellate Division. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and reversed the Appellate Division’s order, remitting the matter for further proceedings.

Issue(s)

Whether a presumption of receipt of a notice of determination arises when there is no testimony or documentary support for the finding that the notice was mailed to the claimant?

Holding

No, because without proof of an established and regularly followed office procedure designed to ensure that notices to claimants are properly addressed and mailed, the presumption of receipt does not arise.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the referee’s finding that the notice of determination was mailed to the claimant was unsupported by any evidence in the record. The court acknowledged the principle that where the record indicates an established and regularly followed office procedure designed to ensure proper addressing and mailing of notices, a rebuttable presumption arises that the notices are received. The court cited Nassau Ins. Co. v Murray, 46 NY2d 828, 829-830 to support this principle.

However, the court emphasized that because no proof whatsoever was offered that such a practice had been established or followed, the presumption does not arise in this case. The court stated that while the requisite proof in an administrative proceeding need not rise to the quantum required in a judicial action, it must constitute reasonable evidence of mailing. Because the referee only made findings on the timeliness of the hearing request, the court remitted the matter for further proceedings to consider the merits of the unemployment insurance claim.

The court explicitly stated: “To be sure where the record indicates an established and regularly followed office procedure designed to insure that notices to claimants are properly addressed and mailed, a rebuttable presumption arises that the notices are received.” This highlights the importance of demonstrating a systematic mailing process to rely on the presumption of receipt in administrative contexts.