Com. v. A.S. Kanofsky, Com. v. A.S. Kanofsky

Appellant Alvin S. Kanofsky, pro se, owns commercial property at 30 E. Third St., Bethlehem, PA, with a long‑standing leaking roof and related structural deterioration.
City code official Craig Hynes issued citations after prior notices (first in 2014) and repeated noncompliance; Hynes inspected the property multiple times and documented roof collapse, failed truss, interior water damage, mold, and risk of collapse.
Kanofsky was cited under Section 304.7 of the IPMC (roofs and drainage) and Section 403.46 of the UCC (certificate of occupancy); a Magisterial District Judge convicted him and fined $1,000 plus costs.
On de novo appeal, the trial court heard Hynes’s testimony and Kanofsky’s statement; the court found Hynes credible and Kanofsky not credible, concluding no repairs had been made despite opportunities and time.
The trial court convicted Kanofsky of the IPMC violation, fined him $1,000 plus costs, and sentenced him to five days’ imprisonment; Kanofsky appealed to this Court.
The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding the evidence was sufficient and declining to reweigh credibility or substitute its judgment for the fact‑finder.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to convict under IPMC §304.7	Kanofsky argued he was not responsible for the property condition	City argued Hynes’s inspections and testimony showed ongoing, unrepaired roof defects creating danger	Conviction affirmed; evidence and inferences supported guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
Credibility determinations on conflicting testimony	Kanofsky contended his account and efforts to obtain estimates justified noncompliance	City relied on Hynes’s credible, detailed observations of ongoing danger and lack of repairs	Court accepted trial court’s credibility findings and refused to reweigh evidence
Appropriateness of penalties (fine and imprisonment)	Kanofsky implicitly challenged outcome as unjust given his efforts	City maintained penalties followed from continued violations and public danger	Penalty upheld as within trial court’s discretion
Review standard on de novo appeal with additional evidence	N/A (procedural)	City relied on established standard limiting appellate reweighing	Court applied standard: review for abuse of discretion or errors of law; affirmed

Commonwealth v. Spontarelli, 791 A.2d 1254 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (summaries require proof beyond a reasonable doubt; review views evidence in light most favorable to Commonwealth)
Commonwealth v. Hoffman, 938 A.2d 1157 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (appellate courts may not reweigh evidence or substitute credibility judgments)
Carr v. State Bd. of Pharmacy, 409 A.2d 941 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (credibility and evidentiary weight are for the fact‑finder)