City of Philadelphia v. Albert's Restaurant, Inc. and A. Buoncristiano
176 A.3d 367
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- Albert’s Restaurant and its president, Albert Buoncristiano (Taxpayers), faced City of Philadelphia assessments for business income & receipts, wage, and liquor sales taxes after audits covering 2006–2009, reduced on re-audit to ~$111,118.44 (plus interest/penalties).
- City sued for payment in March 2015; matter placed on an expedited July 2016 trial pool with Philadelphia’s “next day minimum” notice practice (trial notice no later than 3:00 p.m. the day before).
- On July 20, 2016, court administration left voicemail notices that trial would be July 21 at 9:30 a.m.; when the case was called July 21 at 9:30 a.m., neither party was present.
- Court staff contacted counsel; Taxpayers’ counsel said he was in New York and could appear the following morning; the trial court nonetheless told parties it would proceed later that day, the City presented its case, and judgment entered for the City.
- Taxpayers moved for post-trial relief seeking a new trial (or JNOV) asserting they did not receive the voicemail and that counsel had been told City counsel would be unavailable the week of July 18; the trial court denied relief and Taxpayers appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (City) | Defendant's Argument (Taxpayers) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of a short continuance/new trial was an abuse of discretion violating due process | Court followed local fast-track rules; parties had 24-hour notice by voicemail so denial proper | Counsel did not receive voicemail and offered satisfactory excuse; sought 24-hour continuance or new trial | Vacated trial court’s denial; remanded for new trial — trial court abused discretion in refusing short continuance/new trial |
| Whether the trial court properly proceeded when neither party initially appeared | Court could exercise discretion to proceed and allowed City to present case later that day | Proceeding unfairly advantaged City; Rule 218 required nonsuit/non pros when both sides not ready | Trial court erred: when both parties were not ready, Rule 218 required nonsuit/non pros; allowing City to go forward was manifestly unreasonable |
| Whether counsel’s prior conduct justified denial (pattern of misconduct) | Prior sanction and late settlement memo showed pattern supporting denial | Prior incidents (late memo, tardiness) did not establish a pattern or deliberate failure to appear; excuse was satisfactory | No pattern established and record lacked evidence that voicemail was sent; trial court misapplied discretion |
| Prejudice to City from granting new trial (scheduling of auditor) | Auditor’s limited availability would be prejudiced by retrial | Auditor’s short-notice availability is an expected constraint in fast-track cases | City’s scheduling concern insufficient to outweigh Taxpayers’ right to a fair hearing; not a bar to new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Paddy, 15 A.3d 431 (Pa. 2011) (standard for reviewing continuance denial is abuse of discretion)
- Commonwealth v. Korn, 467 A.2d 1203 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983) (definition and limits of judicial discretion and abuse thereof)
- Williams ex rel. Williams v. School Dist. of Philadelphia, 870 A.2d 414 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (factors to consider when counsel fails to appear: pattern, inadvertence, contact attempts, prejudice, lesser sanctions)
- Shin v. Brenan, 764 A.2d 609 (Pa. Super. 2000) (discusses standards for granting relief when counsel fails to appear)
- City of Philadelphia v. Petherbridge, 781 A.2d 263 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (scope of review for denial of post-trial relief)
- Arches Condominium Ass’n v. Robinson, 131 A.3d 122 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (post-trial/motion for reconsideration may be treated as Rule 227.1 post-trial motion)