If a New York village snowplow knocks over my mailbox during snow removal, does the village have to pay to fix it?

Plain-English summary

A village snowplow destroyed a Johnson City resident's mailbox during the winter of 1998. The mailbox was within the village's highway right-of-way. The Village Attorney asked whether the village had to pay for the damage.

The AG said not in general. The mailbox owner has at most an informal license to place the mailbox in the village's highway right-of-way. The license does not give the owner any legal claim to the highway when the highway is needed for highway purposes. A 1966 AG opinion (1966 Op Atty Gen (Inf) 54) was the previous statement of this rule.

Villages have a statutory duty to keep their streets clear and available for public use (Village Law § 6-602; Highway Law § 319 for state highways; Tinker v New York, Ontario and Western Railroad, 157 NY 312 (1898); McLane v State, 53 NYS2d 194 (Ct Cl 1945)). Snow removal is part of that duty. A property owner cannot interfere with "the speedy and efficient removal of snow." So if the village damages a mailbox while removing snow, the village is not automatically liable.

The AG's conclusion depends on the conduct of the snow removal. If the mailbox was in the village's highway right-of-way and the snow removal was non-negligent, the village is not liable for the damage. The opinion does not decide whether the village was negligent in the reported incident.

The opinion also noted (in a footnote) that the U.S. Postal Service's own rules require curbside mailboxes to be placed for safe delivery by carriers without leaving their vehicles. State laws and regulations may govern placement, but the practical reality is that mailbox placement at the road edge is what the Post Office expects.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1999. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Did the AG decide whether the village's plow operator was negligent?

No. The AG said whether the village is responsible for damage to a reasonably placed mailbox is a question of fact about the snow removal. The opinion gives no examples of negligent plowing.

Does putting a mailbox in the right-of-way give its owner legal rights in the highway?

No. The AG said a property owner may have an informal license to place a mailbox there, but gains no legal rights in the highway when it is needed for highway purposes.

Why does the opinion mention Postal Service placement rules?

The AG noted that truck delivery often requires a mailbox to be within reach from the road. The cited 1998 Postal Service rule called for curbside placement allowing safe delivery without the carrier leaving the vehicle, subject to state law and regulations.

What if the village damages the mailbox during something other than snow removal?

The opinion addresses damage from village snow removal. It does not decide liability for damage during other highway work.

Does this rule apply to towns and counties too?

The opinion addresses a village's snow removal and cites Village Law § 6-602. It does not decide the liability of a town or county.

Background and statutory framework

Village Law § 6-602. Imposes the village's duty to keep streets free from obstructions and available for public use.

Highway Law § 319. Parallel statute for state highways.

Street maintenance. The AG cited Tinker v New York, Ontario and Western Railroad, 157 NY 312 (1898), and McLane v State, 53 NYS2d 194 (Ct Cl 1945), alongside the statutes for the village's duty to keep streets clear and available for public use.

Informal license doctrine. 1966 Op Atty Gen (Inf) 54 established that a property owner placing a mailbox in the public right-of-way holds only an informal license, not a legal interest in the highway.

USPS placement requirements. Domestic Mail Manual § D041.2.7 requires curbside mailboxes to be placed for safe delivery by carriers without leaving their vehicles.

Citations

• Village Law § 6-602 (village duty to keep streets unobstructed).
• Highway Law § 319 (state highway maintenance duty).
• Tinker v New York, Ontario and Western Railroad, 157 NY 312 (1898) (cited with the street-maintenance duty).
• McLane v State, 53 NYS2d 194 (Ct Cl 1945) (cited with the street-maintenance duty).
• 1966 Op Atty Gen (Inf) 54 (mailbox in right-of-way as informal license).
• USPS Domestic Mail Manual § D041.2.7 (curbside mailbox placement).

Source

• Landing page: https://ag.ny.gov/libraries-documents/opinions/opinions-year
• Original PDF: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/I_99-1_pw.pdf

Original opinion text

VILLAGE LAW § 6-602; HIGHWAY LAW § 319. If a property owner places his or her mailbox in the Village's highway right of way, the Village is not liable for damage to the mailbox if such damage was caused by non-negligent Village snow removal activities. The facts will determine whether a village, as a result of snow removal activities, is liable for damage to a mailbox placed in the highway right of way. January 19, 1999

Todd D. Kilpatrick, Esq.
Village Attorney
Village of Johnson City
One Marine Midland Place
P.O. Box 2039
Binghamton, New York 13902

Informal Opinion
No. 99-1

Dear Mr. Kilpatrick:
You have requested an opinion regarding whether a Village is responsible for damage done to a private citizen's mailbox during the snow removal process when the mailbox is erected within the Village's highway right of way. You informed us that the mailbox of a resident of the Village was destroyed by a Village snowplow during the winter of 1998. For purposes of this opinion, you asked that we assume the mailbox was erected within the Village's highway right of way. You are aware of prior opinions of this office, but have requested an update. While a property owner may have an informal license to place his or her mailbox in the highway right of way, this does not endow the owner of the mailbox with any legal rights in the highway when needed for highway purposes. 1966 Op Atty Gen (Inf)

54. We note, however, that in many areas the United States Post
    Office delivers the mail by truck, necessitating that mailboxes be placed within reach of the truck and consequently in the highway right of way.

The United States Post Office requires that, "[s]ubject to state laws and regulations, a curbside mailbox must be placed to allow safe and convenient delivery by carriers without leaving their vehicles." United States Post Office, Domestic Mail Manual
§ D041.2.7 (January 1, 1998).

Villages have a duty to keep their streets free from obstructions and available for public use. Village Law § 6-602; cf., Highway Law § 319; Tinker v New York, Ontario and Western Railroad, 157 NY 312 (1898); McLane v State, 53 NYS2d 194 (Ct Cl 1945). The removal of snow is necessary to keep the streets unobstructed and available for public use. As we stated in our 1966 opinion, a property owner may not "interfere with the speedy and efficient removal of snow" which is part of "proper highway maintenance." 1966 Op Atty Gen (Inf)

54. Accordingly, if a property owner places his or her mailbox
    in the Village's highway right of way, the Village is not liable for damage to the mailbox if such damage was caused by non-negligent Village snow removal activities. Thus, whether the Village is responsible for damage to a reasonably placed mailbox is a question of fact relating to the conduct of the snow removal activities. The Attorney General renders formal opinions only to officers and departments of State government. This perforce is an informal and unofficial expression of the views of this office. Very truly yours,

YVONNE M. HOVE
Assistant Attorney General