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

Appellant Alvin S. Kanofsky owned commercial property at 30 E. Third St., Bethlehem.
City code official Craig Hynes issued 31 citations in February 2016: 16 for lacking a certificate of occupancy (UCC §403.46) and 15 for failing to repair a leaking/collapsing roof (IPMC §304.7), issued across multiple dates.
An MDJ convicted Kanofsky after a summary trial, fining him and imposing jail; Kanofsky appealed to the Court of Common Pleas, which held a de novo hearing.
At the de novo hearing Hynes testified the building was substantially deteriorated (collapsed roof trusses, mold, water damage, imminent danger of exterior stucco falling) and that roof defects persisted since 2007; Kanofsky admitted he lacked a certificate of occupancy and had not repaired the roof despite prior notices.
The trial court found Kanofsky guilty on all 31 counts, fined him approximately $29,700 plus costs, and sentenced him to five days’ imprisonment; Kanofsky appealed to this Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for convictions under IPMC §304.7 (roof defects) and UCC §403.46 (no certificate of occupancy)	Kanofsky contends he was not responsible for the property’s condition and had permission to store personal items, implying lack of culpability	City/Comwlth relied on Hynes’s testimony documenting persistent roof defects, public danger, and absence of a certificate of occupancy	Convictions affirmed; trial court’s credibility findings reasonable and evidence supported each element beyond a reasonable doubt
Credibility of witnesses / need to reweigh evidence	Kanofsky urged the court to adopt his version of facts and dismiss citations	City argued Hynes’s testimony was credible and documentary evidence was admissible; trial court viewed Kanofsky’s explanations as not credible	Appellate court declined to reweigh credibility; accepts trial court’s implied credibility determinations
Appropriate penalties and daily citations for continuing violations	Kanofsky challenged fines and repeated citations as improper	City showed repeated citations across multiple February dates after prior notices and failed compliance	Penalties and multiple convictions affirmed; court found process and citations lawful

Commonwealth v. Spontarelli, 791 A.2d 1254 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (standard for sufficiency in summary offense cases; view evidence in light most favorable to Commonwealth)
Commonwealth v. Hoffman, 938 A.2d 1157 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (appellate court will not reweigh evidence or supplant fact-finder’s credibility determinations)
Carr v. State Bd. of Pharmacy, 409 A.2d 941 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (matters of credibility and evidentiary weight are within the fact-finder’s discretion)