IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Alvin S. Kanofsky, :

Appellant :

:

v. :

: No. 598 C.D. 2016

City of Bethlehem : Submitted: November 10, 2016

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY

SENIOR JUDGE PELLEGRINI FILED: December 6, 2016

Alvin S. Kanofsky (Kanofsky) appeals, pro se, from the order of the 

Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County (trial court) denying his appeal from

a decision of the City of Bethlehem Code Board of Appeals (Board) finding that he 

was in violation of Article 1733 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Bethlehem 

(Ordinance). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

I.

Kanofsky is the owner of commercial property located at 30 East Third 

Street (Building) in the City of Bethlehem (City), Northampton County, 

Pennsylvania. This Building has been the subject of several lawsuits in the trial court 

pertaining to alleged code violations as well as appeals to this Court including our 
2

recent decision in Kanofsky v. City of Bethlehem (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 2163 C.D. 2015, 

filed September 28, 2016) 2016 WL 5400490.

Here, on August 25, 2015, Craig Hynes (Hynes), the City’s chief code 

official, issued a notice of violation to Kanofsky because an inspection revealed that 

the plaster stucco finish on the eastern exterior wall of the Building was deteriorating 

and in danger of falling off in violation of Section 304.6 of the International Property 

Maintenance Code (IPMC) (2009 ed.) which was adopted as Article 1733 of the 

Ordinance. Specifically, Section 304.6 of the IPMC requires that the exterior of 

buildings be maintained free from holes, breaks and loose or rotted material and be 

maintained weatherproof. The notice stated that Kanofsky had 15 days to repair the 

loose and cracked material or he could be subject to fines. Kanofsky failed to make 

the necessary repairs.

Kanofsky filed a timely appeal of the notice of violation and on 

September 24, 2015, the Board unanimously found Kanofsky in violation of Article 

1733, Section 304.6 of the IPMC. Kanofsky then appealed the Board’s decision to 

the trial court1and a hearing was scheduled for March 14, 2016.

2

 Kanofsky filed an 

 

1 Kanofsky’s appeal was docketed in the trial court at Case No. C-48-CV-2015-10074.

2 On May 15, 2015, the City’s Blighted Property Review Committee (Committee) issued an 

official notice that the property the Building was located on was blighted pursuant to Article 149 of 

the Ordinance and Section 12.1 of the Urban Redevelopment Law, Act of May 24, 1945, P.L. 991, 

as amended, 35 P.S. § 1712.1, added by Section 2 of the Act of June 23, 1978, P.L. 556. Following 

a hearing, the Committee issued a decision declaring the property to be blighted. Kanofsky 

appealed to the trial court and the case was docketed at Case No. C-48-CV-2015-7937. That appeal 

was scheduled for a hearing before the trial court on March 14, 2016, the same day as Kanofsky’s 

IPMC code violation appeal hearing.
3

application for a continuation, which was denied, and he failed to appear at the March 

14, 2016 hearing.

Hynes testified that one of the expansion joints on the eastern wall of the 

Building was starting to buckle and that there was a gap in the wall measuring 

approximately 2 to 3 inches wide by 15 to 18 feet long. Hynes testified that water 

could infiltrate the wall through the gap, and once the water freezes in winter, it 

would expand and cause parts of the wall to crack and fall off. Hynes provided 

pictures that were entered into evidence showing the gap and deterioration in the 

wall. Hynes also testified that as of the date of the hearing, the wall had not been 

repaired and Kanofsky had made no effort to repair the deteriorating stucco.

After hearing this evidence and given Kanofsky’s failure to appear, the 

trial court issued an order denying Kanofsky’s appeal and finding that he was in 

violation of the Ordinance. This appeal followed.3

II.

Kanofsky appears to argue that the trial court erred in finding him 

responsible for the violation and that the City itself was, in fact, the responsible party. 

He also argues that Hynes “exaggerate[ed] the so called violations, such as bricks 

falling out side and back wall, etc.” (Kanofsky Brief at 15.) This argument is 

without merit. First, Kanofsky is admittedly the owner of the Building and he failed 

 

3 Our review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated or whether 

the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Borough of Walnutport v. Dennis, 

114 A.3d 11, 17 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015).
4

to appear at the hearing on this matter, let alone attempt in any way to rebut the 

testimony and evidence presented by the City. Second, Hynes did not testify to 

bricks falling out the side and back walls of the Building, and his testimony regarding 

the significant gap in the wall is supported by photographic evidence. Third, since 

the trial court was sitting as fact-finder in this case, it was free to make credibility 

determinations and to believe all, part or none of Hynes’ testimony. See 

Commonwealth v. Holtzapfel, 895 A.2d 1284, 1289 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (citing 

Allegheny Ludlum Corporation v. Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County, 659 

A.2d 20 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995)). As such, there is competent evidence in the record to 

support the determination that the condition of the Building violated Article 1733 of 

the Ordinance.

In his brief to this Court, Kanofsky repeatedly references facts from and 

makes arguments related to an appeal of the Committee’s determination that his 

property was blighted. However, Kanofsky’s notice of appeal and proof of service in 

this case only lists one docket number from which he is appealing – Case No. C-48-

CV-2015-10074 – which pertains to the code violation for the deteriorating stucco on 

the side of the Building. In addition, Kanofsky’s brief to this Court indicates that the 

order he is appealing is that issued by the trial court on March 14, 2016, which deals 

solely with that code violation. Therefore, any arguments Kanofsky makes with 

respect to the Committee’s determination on blight are not properly before this Court

and will not be addressed. Similarly, Kanofsky’s attempts to re-assert arguments 

previously made and ruled upon in the case Kanofsky v. City of Bethlehem (Pa. 
5

Cmwlth., No. 2163 C.D. 2015, filed September 28, 2016) 2016 WL 5400490, are 

inappropriate.4

Accordingly, the order of the trial court is affirmed.

_____________________________

DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge

 

4 Kanofsky also argues that the trial court prevented him from receiving a copy of the 

transcript of the hearing in this matter. However, the trial court noted in its Rule 1925(a) opinion 

that Kanofsky was provided with a copy of the transcript in a timely manner once payment was 

received. Moreover, Kanofsky fails to claim that he was prejudiced in any way by the alleged 

delay.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Alvin S. Kanofsky, :

Appellant :

:

v. :

:

City of Bethlehem : No. 598 C.D. 2016

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 6

th day of December, 2016, the order of the Court 

of Common Pleas of Northampton County in the above-captioned matter is hereby 

affirmed.

_____________________________

DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge