IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania :

:

v. : No. 1523 C.D. 2016

: No. 1524 C.D. 2016

Alvin S. Kanofsky, : No. 1525 C.D. 2016

Appellant : Submitted: May 5, 2017

BEFORE: HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

HONORABLE JULIA K. HEARTHWAY, Judge

HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BY JUDGE BROBSON FILED: August 11, 2017

In these consolidated appeals, Appellant Alvin S. Kanofsky 

(Kanofsky), pro se, appeals from three orders of the Court of Common Pleas of 

Northampton County (trial court), dated May 25, 2016. Following a de novo

hearing, the trial court found Kanofsky guilty of four summary criminal charges 

for violations of certain provisions of the International Property Maintenance Code 

(2009 ed.) (IPMC) and the Pennsylvania Uniform Construction Code (UCC),

1

both 

of which have been made part of the Codified Ordinances of the City of 

Bethlehem, Pennsylvania (Ordinance).

2

 For the reasons set forth below, we affirm 

the trial court’s orders. 

 

1

34 Pa. Code §§ 401.1-405.42. 

2 Article 1733 of the Ordinance adopted the IPMC with certain additions, deletions, and 

modifications as noted therein. Article 1701 of the Ordinance adopted the UCC with certain 

additions, deletions, and modifications as noted therein. 
2

Kanofsky is the owner of commercial property located at 30 East 

Third Street (Property) in the City of Bethlehem (City). On September 17, 2015, 

Craig B. Hynes (Hynes), the City’s chief code official, issued two citations to 

Kanofsky, one for failure to obtain a certificate of occupancy for the Property in 

violation of Section 403.46 of the UCC3and another for failure to correct 

violations related to the Property’s exterior structure in violation of 

Section 304.1 of the IPMC.

4

 Thereafter, on September 25, 2015, Hynes issued two 

more citations to Kanofsky, one for failure to make required repairs to loose and 

cracked materials on the Property’s exterior structure in violation of Section 304.6 

of the IPMC5and another for failure to obtain a certificate of occupancy for the 

Property in violation of Section 403.46 of the UCC. On February 3, 2016, after

holding a summary trial, a Magisterial District Judge (MDJ) found Kanofsky guilty 

of all four violations of the Ordinance and assessed fines and costs against 

Kanofsky in the amount of $1,952.50. 

 

3

Section 403.46 of the UCC provides, in relevant part: “(a) A building, structure or 

facility may not be used or occupied without a certificate of occupancy issued by a building code 

official.”

4

Section 304.1 of the IPMC provides: “General. The exterior of a structure shall be 

maintained in good repair, structurally sound and sanitary so as not to pose a threat to the public 

health, safety or welfare.” Section 304.1.1 of the IPMC sets forth specific conditions that are 

deemed unsafe and must be repaired or replaced. One of the unsafe conditions is: “[r]oofing or 

roofing components that have defects that admit rain, roof surfaces with inadequate drainage, or 

any portion of the roof framing that is not in good repair with signs of deterioration, fatigue or 

without proper anchorage and incapable of supporting all nominal loads and resisting all load 

effects.” Section 304.1.1(8) of the IPMC (emphasis in original.) 

5

Section 304.6 of the IPMC provides: “Exterior Walls. All exterior walls shall be free 

from holes, breaks, and loose or rotting materials; and maintained weatherproof and properly 

surface coated where required to prevent deterioration.” (Emphasis in original.) 
3

Kanofsky appealed the MDJ’s determinations to the trial court. The 

trial court held a de novo hearing on May 25, 2016. At the hearing, the City6

presented the testimony of Lieutenant Benjamin Hackett (Lt. Hackett) of the City’s 

police department. Lt. Hackett testified that on March 24, 2015, he and another 

police officer responded to the Property based on a report that an exterior door to 

the building located on the Property was open and that there were potential 

squatters located inside the building. (Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 21-22.) Lt. 

Hackett testified further that upon their arrival at the Property, he and the other

police officer entered through the open door and searched the building to “clear” it 

of any unauthorized individuals and/or criminal behavior. (Id. at 22, 24.) During 

their search, Lt. Hackett made the following observations regarding the interior of 

the building: (1) the building was filled with a large amount of items/junk; 

(2) certain sections of the floor were missing, thereby exposing the floor 

beams/joists and leaving the ceiling from the floor below the only means of 

support; (3) some of the windows were missing; (4) the fourth/upper floor 

contained large trash vessels that were filled and overflowing with water; (5) water 

had been entering the building through the roof, causing the ceiling to deteriorate

and litter the floor with debris; (6) the water overflowing from the trash vessels had 

caused damage to the floor; and (7) the building contained an extensive amount of 

mold. (Id. at 22.) Lt. Hackett explained that the interior of the building was 

basically falling apart. (Id.) Lt. Hackett testified that he also walked around the 

exterior/perimeter of the building (the three sides that were accessible). (Id. at 23.) 

 

6

The City assumed responsibility for the prosecution of the violations of its Ordinance on 

behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth). All references to the City shall 

also be considered references to the Commonwealth. 
4

As he did so, he observed broken pieces of brick located on the sidewalk below the 

south-facing wall and was concerned about whether it was even safe to stand under 

the wall. (Id.) Lt. Hackett testified further that he had prepared a police report 

detailing his observations about the Property and requested that it be forwarded to 

the building inspection department due to the safety issues that he had discovered. 

(Id. at 26.) 

The City also presented the testimony of Hynes. Hynes testified that 

he had issued a citation to Kanofsky for violation of Section 304.1.1 of the IPMC 

as a result of Lt. Hackett’s observations regarding the leaky roof that had been

causing the building to deteriorate and fall into a state of disrepair. (Id. at 27, 29; 

Certified Record (C.R.), Ex. C-11B.) Hynes testified further that he had also 

performed an inspection of the Property in February 2014, which revealed, inter 

alia, deteriorating brick on the rear and courtyard sides of the building that needed 

to be pointed, as well as water bleeding through the exterior brick. (R.R. at 27.) 

Following that inspection, the City sent Kanofsky a letter dated February 25, 2014, 

advising him that he would be issued a citation, if he did not make certain 

corrections to the Property. (Id.; C.R., Ex. C-5.) Hynes explained that some of the 

issues identified in the February 25, 2014 letter, namely the deteriorating brick on 

the south-facing wall of the Property, were the same as those that resulted in the

issuance of the citation to Kanofsky for violation of Section 304.6 of the IPMC.7 

(R.R. at 27, 29; C.R., Ex. C-11C.) More specifically, Hynes stated that the 

 

7 Hynes admitted that Kanofsky had corrected some of the issues identified in the

February 25, 2014 letter and that those issues were not part of the citations that are the subject of 

this case. (R.R. at 31.) In addition, the City’s attorney conceded that the City was proceeding 

against Kanofsky for the defective condition of only the south-facing wall of the Property, not 

the courtyard wall. (Id. at 32.) 
5

south-facing side of the building contained missing bricks, loose and deteriorating 

bricks, and severely deteriorating and loose mortar joints. (R.R. at 28.) Hynes also 

testified that in October 2015, at an initial hearing before the MDJ, the MDJ 

requested that Hynes create a timeline for Kanofsky to complete any repairs to the 

Property. (Id.) At that time, Hynes and Kanofsky agreed in writing that Kanofsky 

would have six months to repoint and repair the brick.8(Id. at 28-29; 

C.R., Ex. C-10.) Hynes testified that despite this agreement, Kanofsky did not 

repair and repoint the brick and the condition of the brick has probably become 

worse since that time. (R.R. at 29.) 

Hynes testified further that he also issued two citations to Kanofsky 

for failure to have a certificate of occupancy for the Property in violation of 

Section 403.46 of the UCC. (Id.; C.R., Exs. C-11A and C-11D.) Hynes explained 

that when you look into the front windows of the building, you can see “a lot of 

material inside the building being stored.” (R.R. at 30; C.R., Exs. C-4A 

through C-4F.) Hynes explained further that since May 23, 2016, when he took 

photographs of the front of the building, and September 2015, when he issued the 

citations, the materials have remained inside the building and have not been 

removed. (R.R. at 30.) Hynes testified that the storage of the items currently 

located at the Property requires a certificate of occupancy, which Kanofsky does 

not have and has never had during the sixteen years that Hynes has been employed 

by the City. (Id. at 30-31.) 

 

8 Hynes and Kanofsky also agreed that Kanofsky would have: (1) one month to complete 

any soffit and fascia repairs on the Adams Street side of the building; (2) three months to 

complete any repairs to the roof; and (3) four months to remove all materials that had been stored 

in the building. (C.R., Ex. C-10.)
6

Kanofsky, who was acting pro se, made a statement at the hearing on 

his own behalf. Kanofsky stated that from the time that he purchased the building 

until about ten years ago, he had been performing repairs and trying to maintain the 

building and that he had verbal permission to store items at the Property. 

(Id. at 33.) On cross-examination, Kanofsky admitted that he was the owner of the 

Property. (Id.) Kanofsky also admitted that in October 2015, when the case was 

before the MDJ, he had signed an agreement, wherein he agreed to repair the roof 

within three months, remove all materials from the Property within four months, 

and repair and repoint the brick within six months. (Id.) Kanofsky admitted 

further that he had obtained estimates, but that none of the work that he had agreed 

to perform had been completed and the items being stored in the building had not 

been removed. (Id.) Kanofsky explained that he had run into problems with the 

contractors because the work could not be performed in the cold weather. (Id.) 

Kanofsky also explained that it was his intention to remedy the issues “very 

quickly now that the warm weather [was] here.” (Id.) 

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court determined that the 

City had met its burden of proof with respect to Kanofsky’s violations of the IPMC 

and the UCC. As a result, the trial court found Kanofsky guilty of all charges and

fined Kanofsky in the amount of $1,400, plus the costs of prosecution.

9

 Kanofsky 

 

9

The trial court imposed the following fines against Kanofsky: (1) a $400 fine plus costs 

for Kanofsky’s first offense of failure to obtain a certificate of occupancy in violation of 

Section 403.46 of the UCC; (2) a $600 fine plus costs for Kanofsky’s second offense of failure to 

obtain a certificate of occupancy in violation of Section 403.46 of the UCC; (3) a $200 fine plus 

costs for Kanofsky’s failure to make required repairs to loose and cracked materials on the 

Property’s exterior structure in violation of Section 304.6 of the IPMC; and (4) a $200 fine plus 

costs for Kanofsky’s failure to correct violations related to the Property’s exterior structure in 

violation of Section 304.1 of the IPMC. 
7

then appealed to this Court,10 and the trial court directed Kanofsky to file a 

statement of matters complained of on appeal. In its 1925(a) opinion,11 the trial 

court concluded that Kanofsky’s argument that it erred in its credibility 

determinations lacked merit because, as the fact-finder, it was free to believe or 

disbelieve the presented testimony. (Trial Ct. Op., Aug. 4, 2016, at 20-23.) The 

trial court concluded further that the believable testimony of Lt. Hackett and Hynes 

supported Kanofsky’s summary convictions, such that the summary convictions 

did not “shock the conscience.”

12

 (Trial Ct. Op., Aug. 4, 2016, at 21-23.) In 

reaching these conclusions, the trial court stated:

[Lt.] Hackett testified that: 1) the interior of the Property 

was filled with a large amount of items; 2) there was 

significant water damage to the interior of the Property; 

3) the interior of the Property appeared unsafe; and 4) the 

exterior brick walls were crumbling onto the sidewalk 

below. Additionally, Hynes testified that: 1) the roof of 

the Property was leaking and deteriorating the interior of 

 

10 Kanofsky initially filed his appeals with the Pennsylvania Superior Court. By order 

dated July 28, 2016, the Superior Court transferred the matters to this Court as this Court has 

exclusive jurisdiction over the matters pursuant to Section 762(a)(4) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. 

C.S. § 762(a)(4).

11 The trial court issued an initial 1925(a) opinion on July 25, 2016. In that opinion, the 

trial court recommended that Kanofsky’s appeal be quashed because he failed to timely file a 

statement of errors complained of on appeal (1925(b) statement). On August 4, 2016, however, 

after receiving a copy of Kanofsky’s 1925(b) statement from the clerk of the criminal division, 

the trial court issued a supplemental 1925(a) opinion, wherein the trial court addressed the merits 

of Kanofsky’s arguments on appeal. All further references to the trial court’s 1925(a) opinion 

will be to the supplemental 1925(a) opinion issued on August 4, 2016.

12 The trial court also concluded: (1) Kanofsky failed to preserve certain issues for 

appellate review because such issues were difficult to discern from Kanofsky’s 1925(b) 

statement and were merely narrative statements; and (2) more than half of Kanofsky’s issues 

related to the trial court’s alleged failure to consider evidence that Kanofsky did not present at 

the May 25, 2016 hearing.
8

the Property; 2) the bricks on the exterior of the south 

facing wall of the Property were deteriorating and 

crumbling; 3) vines were growing on the west side wall 

of the Property, but they did not cause the damage to the 

south facing wall of the Property; 4) Kanofsky had not 

remediated the exterior brick problem since it was first 

reported in February of 2014; 4) [sic] Kanofsky was 

storing items inside the Property; and 5) [sic] Kanofsky 

has not had a certificate of occupancy for the Property in 

the past sixteen years. Kanofsky also testified at trial 

and, to some extent, presented contradictory testimony. 

Specifically, he testified that he made some 

improvements to the Property following the 

February 2014 inspection. However, Kanofsky also 

testified that he did not comply with the October 2015 

agreement to fix the exterior bricks, and acknowledged 

that he stored items in the Property. 

As demonstrated in [Commonwealth v.] 

Blackham[, 909 A.2d 315 (Pa. Super. 2006), appeal 

denied, 919 A.2d 954 (Pa. 2007)], the finder-of-fact is 

free to believe or disbelieve both [Lt.] Hackett’s and 

Hynes’s testimony. Here, the [trial] court, rather than a 

jury, sat as the finder-of-fact. [The trial court] did not 

find that the testimony of either [Lt.] Hackett or Hynes 

was tenuous, vague, or uncertain. Instead, [the trial 

court] found that both [Lt.] Hackett and Hynes testified 

consistently, calmly, confidently, and presented logical 

and clear testimony. Contrary to Kanofsky’s assertions, 

[the trial court] found that the testimony of [Lt.] Hackett 

and Hynes closely aligned, and supported the 

Commonwealth’s version of events. Further, [the trial 

court] did not find any evidence that either [Lt.] Hackett 

or Hynes had a bias or motivation to testify untruthfully, 

and therefore, [the trial court] did not weigh bias in [its]

credibility determination. Therefore, based upon their 

testimony, as well as their body language in court, [the 

trial court] determined that the testimony of [Lt.] Hackett 

and Hynes was credible. 

Kanofsky, however, did not testify credibly. 

Kanofsky’s statements at trial were often contradictory 

and illogical, and do not align with the errors he alleges 

on appeal. For instance, Kanofsky admits that he agreed 
9

to fix the Property’s exterior bricks during the winter 

of 2015, but alleges through his [c]oncise [s]tatement [of 

matters complained of on appeal] that it would have been 

impossible to fix the exterior bricks during the winter. 

Kanofsky did not offer any explanation as to why he 

agreed to fix the exterior bricks during this time period if 

he did not believe that it would be possible to do so. 

Further, while Kanofsky alleges that the [trial] court 

should have considered the damage the vines caused 

when weighing the evidence, Hynes’s testimony, 

bolstered by the actual citations, prove Kanofsky’s 

arguments to be irrelevant and illogical as the citations do 

not concern the wall where the vines are located. As a 

whole, Kanofsky’s testimony appeared to be contrived 

and untruthful, as demonstrated by Kanofsky’s body 

language and mannerisms as he testified at trial. 

(Trial Ct. Op., Aug. 4, 2016, at 20-23 (citations omitted).)

On appeal,13 Kanofsky appears to argue that the summary convictions 

should be overturned because he was not responsible for the condition of and 

damage to the Property and he had permission to store his personal items at the 

Property.14 In response, the City argues that the trial court properly convicted 

Kanofsky of violating Sections 304.1 and 304.6 of the IPMC and Section 403.46 of 

the UCC because the evidence supporting such convictions was overwhelming.

 

13 In reviewing a summary conviction matter, where the trial court has taken additional 

evidence in de novo review, our standard of review is limited to considering whether the trial 

court abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Commonwealth v. Spontarelli, 

791 A.2d 1254, 1255 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002).

14 In the “Questions Asked” section of his brief, Kanofsky identifies fourteen issues for 

consideration by this Court on appeal. The majority of Kanofsky’s issues, however, involve

matters that are irrelevant and in no way relate to this appeal and/or have no basis in the record. 

As a result, such issues are not properly before this Court and will not be addressed in this 

opinion. 
10

In Commonwealth v. Spontarelli, 791 A.2d 1254 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), 

we previously noted that “[i]n summary offense cases, the Commonwealth is 

required to establish” guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Spontarelli, 791 A.2d 

at 1258. This Court views “all of the evidence admitted at trial, together with all 

reasonable inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth.” Id. “The test of sufficiency of evidence is whether the trial 

court, as trier of fact, could have found that each element of the offenses charged 

was supported by evidence and inferences sufficient in law to prove guilt beyond a 

reasonable doubt.” Id. “As a reviewing court, this Court may not reweigh the 

evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder.” Commonwealth 

v. Hoffman, 938 A.2d 1157, 1160 n.10 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). “[M]atters of 

credibility and evidentiary weight are within the exclusive discretion of the 

fact-finder below . . . .” Carr v. State Bd. of Pharmacy, 409 A.2d 941, 944 

(Pa. Cmwlth. 1980). “[T]he fact-finder is free to believe all, part or none of the

evidence presented.” Hoffman, 938 A.2d at 1160 n.10. 

Here, the trial court concluded that the City had met its burden of 

proof and found Kanofsky guilty of two offenses of failure to obtain a certificate of 

occupancy in violation of Section 403.46 of the UCC, one offense of failure to 

make required repairs to loose and cracked materials on the Property’s exterior 

structure in violation of Section 304.6 of the IPMC, and one offense of failure to 

correct violations related to the Property’s exterior structure in violation of 

Section 304.1 of the IPMC. In reaching this conclusion, the trial court found

Lt. Hackett’s and Hynes’s testimony to be credible and Kanofsky’s testimony to be 

not credible. Lt. Hackett’s and Hynes’s credible testimony supports the trial 

court’s conclusions in this matter. By arguing that the summary convictions 
11

should be overturned because he was not responsible for the condition of and 

damage to the Property and he had permission to store his personal items at the 

Property, Kanofsky is essentially asking this Court to adopt his preferred version of 

events and, in so doing, to reweigh the evidence and make different credibility 

determinations. This we cannot and will not do. See Hoffman, 

938 A.2d at 1160 n.10. 

Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s orders. 

 

 P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania :

:

v. : No. 1523 C.D. 2016

: No. 1524 C.D. 2016

Alvin S. Kanofsky, : No. 1525 C.D. 2016

Appellant :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 11th day of August, 2017, the orders of the Court of 

Common Pleas of Northampton County are hereby AFFIRMED.

 

 P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge