City of Bethlehem and the United States of America v. A.S. Kanofsky
175 A.3d 467
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- City of Bethlehem filed a petition under the Abandoned and Blighted Property Conservatorship Act seeking appointment as conservator of Kanofsky’s two contiguous commercial parcels (30 E. Third St. and 32 E. Third St.).
- City inspectors and a structural engineer inspected the building after a partial roof collapse and found extensive structural failure, water infiltration, mold, falling bricks, buckled floors, damaged parapet, unsecured entry, and other hazards. Emergency stabilization work (roof and temporary supports) was performed by City-contracted Serfass Construction.
- City presented testimony and an engineering report estimating substantial remediation (approx. $400,000) needed to make the building structurally safe; Serfass performed limited emergency shoring, but significant defects remained.
- The trial court found Kanofsky had not legally occupied or marketed the property, had prior adverse rulings (blight determinations and municipal convictions), and that the property met multiple statutory criteria (public nuisance, unfit for occupancy, risk of fire, attractive nuisance, failure to remedy) under Section 5(d) of the Act.
- Kanofsky, pro se, argued on appeal that the City caused damage, trespassed, and sought to displace him for institutional expansion; he introduced no contrary evidence at the conservatorship hearing.
- The trial court appointed the City conservator; the Commonwealth Court affirmed, deferring to the trial court’s credibility findings and concluding the statutory criteria were satisfied.
Issues
| Issue | Kanofsky’s Argument | City’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appointment of a conservator under the Act was proper | City is responsible for damage, City trespassed, City has improper motives | City met statutory prerequisites and presented credible evidence of blight, danger, and failure to remediate | Affirmed: court found City met Section 5(d) conditions and could be appointed conservator |
| Whether statutory prerequisites (12‑month non‑occupation, lack of marketing/foreclosure, acquisition timing) were satisfied | Owner disputed City’s narrative and motives | City presented evidence and prior court findings showing non‑occupation, lack of recent marketing, no foreclosure, and no recent acquisition | Affirmed: trial court found the prerequisites met |
| Whether property met three-or-more statutory factors (e.g., public nuisance, need for substantial rehabilitation, unfit for habitation) | Owner denied responsibility and argued City actions caused conditions | City’s inspectors/engineer testified to structural collapse, water/mold, falling masonry, unsecured entry, and neighborhood harm | Affirmed: trial court credited City witnesses and found multiple statutory factors present |
| Evidentiary/credibility issues and waiver of appellate points | Raised ~60 issues, alleged factual disputes and improper City conduct | City emphasized unrebutted testimony at hearing and procedural waiver of unraised/unsupported issues | Affirmed: appellate court deferred to factfinder credibility; many issues waived or unsupported |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Conservatorship Proceeding In Rem by Germantown Conservancy, Inc., 995 A.2d 451 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (describing conservatorship purpose and standards under the Act)
- Carr v. State Bd. of Pharmacy, 409 A.2d 941 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (credibility and evidentiary weight are for the factfinder)
- Commonwealth v. Hoffman, 938 A.2d 1157 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (factfinder may accept all, part, or none of the evidence)
- Daddona v. Thind, 891 A.2d 786 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (appellate caution about raising numerous undeveloped issues)