mailing raises a rebuttable presumption in Pennsylvania

2018Further, “it has long been the law of our Commonwealth that ‘proof of a mailing raises a rebuttable presumption that the mailed item was received and it is well- established that the presumption under the mailbox rule is not nullified solely by testimony denying receipt of the item mailed.’” Samaras v. Hartwick, 698 A.2d 71, 73 (Pa. Super. 1997) (quoting Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Grasse, 606 A.2d 544, 545 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991)).

2017The trial court also erred when it concluded that Rivera's testimony was sufficient to establish that he had not received the subject notices. "[-I]t has long been the law of our Commonwealth that ‘proof , of a mailing raises a rebuttable presumption that the mailed item was received and it is well-established that the presumption under the mailbox rule is not nullified solely by testimony denying receipt of the item mailed.’ ” Samaras v. Hartwick, 698 A.2d 71, 73-74 (Pa. Super. 1997) (quoting Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Grasse, 146 Pa.Cmwlth. 17 , 606 A.2d 544, 545 (1991))

2018Further, “it has long been the law of our Commonwealth that ‘proof of a mailing raises a rebuttable presumption that the mailed item was received and it is well- established that the presumption under the mailbox rule is not nullified solely by testimony denying receipt of the item mailed.’” Samaras v. Hartwick, 698 A.2d 71, 73 (Pa. Super. 1997) (quoting Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Grasse, 606 A.2d 544, 545 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991)).

2017The trial court also erred when it concluded that Rivera's testimony was sufficient to establish that he had not received the subject notices. "[-I]t has long been the law of our Commonwealth that ‘proof , of a mailing raises a rebuttable presumption that the mailed item was received and it is well-established that the presumption under the mailbox rule is not nullified solely by testimony denying receipt of the item mailed.’ ” Samaras v. Hartwick, 698 A.2d 71, 73-74 (Pa. Super. 1997) (quoting Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Grasse, 146 Pa.Cmwlth. 17 , 606 A.2d 544, 545 (1991))

2022Under the mailbox rule, see Plaintiffs' Response, ,i 39-41, "proof of a mailing raises a rebuttable presumption that the mailed item was received [, which] is not nullified solely by testimony denying receipt of the item mailed." Breza v. Don Farr Moving & Storage Co., 828 A2d 1131, 1135 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citations and quotations omitted).

2004See, e.g., Berkowitz v. Mayflower Sec., Inc., 455 Pa. 531 , 317 A.2d 584, 585 (1974) (concluding that proof of mailing “creates a rebuttable presumption that the [item mailed] was in fact received”); Breza v. Don Farr Moving & Storage Co., 828 A.2d 1131, 1135 (Pa.Super.2003) (concluding that mailbox rule “provides that proof of a mailing raises a rebuttable presumption that the mailed item was received”); Samaras v. Hartwick, 698 A.2d 71, 73 (Pa.Super.1997) (“[I]t has long been the law of our Commonwealth that proof of a mailing raises a rebuttable presumption that the mailed item was received

2017Notwithstanding, this Court has explained that “an order denying reconsideration of a final order is not an appealable order.” Young v. Estate of Young, 138 A.3d 78, 84 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016).

2004See, e.g., Berkowitz v. Mayflower Sec., Inc., 455 Pa. 531 , 317 A.2d 584, 585 (1974) (concluding that proof of mailing “creates a rebuttable presumption that the [item mailed] was in fact received”); Breza v. Don Farr Moving & Storage Co., 828 A.2d 1131, 1135 (Pa.Super.2003) (concluding that mailbox rule “provides that proof of a mailing raises a rebuttable presumption that the mailed item was received”); Samaras v. Hartwick, 698 A.2d 71, 73 (Pa.Super.1997) (“[I]t has long been the law of our Commonwealth that proof of a mailing raises a rebuttable presumption that the mailed item was received

2004See, e.g., Berkowitz v. Mayflower Sec., Inc., 455 Pa. 531 , 317 A.2d 584, 585 (1974) (concluding that proof of mailing “creates a rebuttable presumption that the [item mailed] was in fact received”); Breza v. Don Farr Moving & Storage Co., 828 A.2d 1131, 1135 (Pa.Super.2003) (concluding that mailbox rule “provides that proof of a mailing raises a rebuttable presumption that the mailed item was received”); Samaras v. Hartwick, 698 A.2d 71, 73 (Pa.Super.1997) (“[I]t has long been the law of our Commonwealth that proof of a mailing raises a rebuttable presumption that the mailed item was received

2004Co. of N.Y., 256 Pa.Super. 312 , 389 A.2d 1139, 1142 (1978) (concluding that upon proof of mailing “a presumption of due receipt may be applied”).

2004Co. of N.Y., 256 Pa.Super. 312 , 389 A.2d 1139, 1142 (1978) (concluding that upon proof of mailing “a presumption of due receipt may be applied”).

1997See also Chartiers Industrial and Commercial Development Authority v. Allegheny Board of Property Assessment, 165 Pa.Commw. 671, 673-75, 645 A.2d 944, 946 (1994); Sheehan v. Worker’s Compensation Appeal Board, 143 Pa.Commw. 624, 629-31, 600 A.2d 633, 636 (1991).

1997See also Chartiers Industrial and Commercial Development Authority v. Allegheny Board of Property Assessment, 165 Pa.Commw. 671, 673-75, 645 A.2d 944, 946 (1994); Sheehan v. Worker’s Compensation Appeal Board, 143 Pa.Commw. 624, 629-31, 600 A.2d 633, 636 (1991).