); see also Meiri, 759 F.2d at 997; Boyce-Herbert v. N.Y. & Presbyterian Hosp., 2020 WL 376788, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2020); Hester v. Rich, 2004 WL 2049271, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2004) (Chin, J.). Tellingly, “[w]hen asked [at her deposition] whether she thought Mack's decision that she did not pass probation had anything to do with her race, gender, age, or national origin, Plaintiff responded, ‘I don't know.'”
See Isaacson v. New York Organ Donor Network, 405 F. App'x 552, 553 (2d Cir. 2011) ("There is a presumption in this circuit that a mailed document is received three days after its mailing" and "mere denial of receipt does not rebut that presumption." (citation omitted and affirming grant of summary judgment where the plaintiff offered no evidence to support claim of nonreceipt "[o]ther than her denial")); Boyce-Herbert v. New York & Presbyterian Hosp., No. 17-CV-01388 AMD SJB, 2020 WL 376788, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2020) ("[A] plaintiff's assertion that she did not receive a properly mailed notice, without more, cannot be a basis for extending or equitably tolling the 90-day requirement."); Orsaio v. New York State Dep't of Corr. & Cmty. Supervision, No. 6:17-CV-00685 BKS TWD, 2019 WL 3891085, at *18 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2019) ("Plaintiff solely relies on her assertion of nonreceipt and does not describe any circumstances from which the Court could reasonably infer nonreceipt (or delayed receipt), such as a change of residence or other mail delivery issues. . . . Therefore, Plaintiff has not successfully rebutted the mailing and receipt presumptions, and her discrimination claims are time barred."). However, in this case, there is an additional piece of evidence that Plaintiff has presented—namely, evidence that his attorney did not receive the right-to-sue letter until November 19, 2019.