Whether the Erie County Water Authority's alleged notice procedures violated due process rights when terminating water service to a customer based on purportedly defective notice to a deceased previous customer

No question identified. : PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUESTION (additional questions see below) Assuming the Rule of Law exist, have you ever seen a case that deviates so far from the Rule of Law? For example (including but not limited t,o): received essential government service from Erie County Water Authority 4/20/2006 3/21/2017 Defense counsel/defendants without proof, alleged a letter was sent registered mailed to the previous customer (who at the time was long deceased) and when the deceased previous customer did not go to the post office and sign for the letter it was returned to ECWA. The Court of Appeals decided this letter provided plaintiff with notice, due process etc when the ECWA terminated her service a year later (3/21/2017). Notably ECWA (superseding) written “notice ” (different) reason alleged an unnamed nonexistent customer, did not call between 3/1/2017 and 3/11/2017, an incorrect ECWA phone number provided and which no employees were answering, regarding the unnamed nonexistent customer ’s nonexistent application for water service. The ECWA waited 5’/2 years after termination and for the first time in their Rule 56 motion, claimed 3/1/2017 “notice ” was an inadvertent error. ECWA has not to date corrected the alleged inadvertent error; has not restore essential service to date; and plaintiff remains homeless. The Court of Appeals denied appeal of WDNY granting ECWA Rule 56 motion, deciding in part Cuto had received due process, notice etc.. 1 Petitioner Patricia J Curto, request that this court issue a writ of certiorari to reverse and remand the decision below. This case should be returned to the WDNY for a jury trial.