J-S90032-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

MICHAEL OSEI IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellant

v.

SUGARHOUSE CASINO, ALEXIS R.

KROLL, WENDY HAMILTON, TONI 

DILACQUA

Appellees No. 919 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Order Entered February 19, 2016

in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Civil Division at No(s): 2664 June Term 2015

BEFORE: OTT, J., SOLANO, J. AND JENKINS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED DECEMBER 02, 2016

Michael Osei (“Appellant”) appeals from an order entered February 19, 

2016 by the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas denying Appellant’s 

Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Appeal and Nunc Pro Tunc Order Modification. 

After careful review, we quash this untimely appeal.

This matter stems from Appellant’s amorous pursuit of Alexis Kroll, a 

cocktail waitress at Sugarhouse Casino, which resulted in the State Police 

bringing summary criminal harassment charges against Appellant. Ms. Kroll 

did not receive a subpoena notifying her of the date and time of Appellant’s 

harassment hearing, however, and so she did not appear to testify. As a 

result, the Philadelphia Municipal Court dismissed the case. 
J-S90032-16

- 2 -

Thereafter, acting pro se, Appellant brought the instant action in which 

he claimed, inter alia, that because the Municipal Court dismissed the 

harassment charges, he is entitled to defense attorney’s fees1and the return 

of tips he gave to Ms. Kroll. On May 21, 2015, following a hearing, the 

Municipal Court entered judgment in favor of Appellees. The trial court 

summarized the further relevant procedural posture of this matter as 

follows:

On June 19, 2015, [Appellant] filed an appeal to [the trial 

court] from the Municipal Court judgment entered in favor of 

[Sugarhouse Casino, Alexis Kroll, Wendy Hamilton, and Toni 

Dilacqua (collectively “Appellees”)] and subsequently filed a 

Complaint on July 17, 2015. On August 6, 2015, [Appellees] 

filed Preliminary Objections to the Complaint, which [the trial 

court] sustained without prejudice for [Appellant] to file a 

properly pleaded Amended Complaint. On October 16, 2015, 

[Appellant] filed an Amended Complaint to which [Appellees] 

filed Preliminary Objections on November 9, 2015. On 

December 7, 2015, [the trial court] sustained [Appellees’] 

Preliminary Objections and dismissed the amended Complaint 

with prejudice. On January 21, 2016, [Appellant] filed an 

untimely Motion for Reconsideration[,] which this [c]ourt denied 

on January 22, 2016. On January 26, 2016, [Appellant] filed an 

untimely Notice of Appeal to the Superior Court.[2] On January 

25, 2016, [Appellant] filed a Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Appeal 

____________________________________________

1 Appellant was represented by counsel during the prosecution of the 

harassment charges. He claims $3,500.00 of attorney’s fees.

2 This Court addressed Appellant’s appeal from the December 7, 2015 order 

sustaining Appellees’ preliminary objections and dismissing Appellant’s 

amended complaint with prejudice at 394 EDA 2016. By dispositional order 

filed April 1, 2016, this Court quashed Appellant’s appeal as untimely. See

Dispositional Order filed April 1, 2016, Osei v. Sugarhouse Casino, et al., 

394 EDA 2016.
J-S90032-16

- 3 -

and Nunc Pro Tunc Order Modification, to which [Appellees] filed 

their opposition on February 16, 2016, and [the trial court] 

denied the motion on February 19, 2016.[3] On March 22, 2016, 

[Appellant] filed an untimely Notice of Appeal to the Superior 

Court.

Trial Court Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, filed May 20, 2016, at pp. 1-2 

(internal footnotes omitted).

Appellant raises the following two issues for our review:

1. WHETHER, the Trial Court erred and abused its discretion 

denying Appellant’s (substituted) amalgamated motion for 

nunc pro tunc relief to appeal the order entered on 

December 8, 2015, and motion for nunc pro tunc order 

despite supporting evidence(s) showing cause for delayed 

appeal for about 18 days, as well as the trial Court’s failure 

to do the following:

(i) without allowing Appellant to reply to Appellees’ 

response against the nunc pro tunc motions demanding 

certain specifics;

(ii) without holding any evidentiary hearing;

(iii) without articulating any reason, explanation, grounds, 

analysis, findings of facts, and conclusions of law on the

face of both the trial Court’s order and section 1925 

opinion denying the nunc pro tunc reliefs.

2. WHETHER, Strong Public Policy and the demands of justice 

requires this Court to look beyond form to set aside procedural 

rules and grant nunc pro tunc reliefs in the interests of justice 

for Appellant.

Appellant’s Brief, pp. 3-4 (verbatim).

____________________________________________

3 The order denying Appellant’s motion is actually dated February 18, 2016. 

However, the prothonotary docketed the order and provided Appellant with 

notice on February 19, 2016. Accordingly, we view the 19th as the operative 

date of the motion. See Pa.R.C.P. 236.
J-S90032-16

- 4 -

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 903 provides, in relevant 

part, as follows:

Rule 903. Time for Appeal

(a) General rule. Except as otherwise prescribed by this rule, 

the notice of appeal required by Rule 902 (manner of taking 

appeal) shall be filed within 30 days after the entry of the order 

from which the appeal is taken.

Pa.R.A.P. 903. Rule 903’s 30-day period must be strictly construed, and this 

Court has no jurisdiction to excuse a failure to file a timely notice. In re 

Greist, 636 A.2d 193, 195 (Pa.Super.1994). “Generally, an untimely appeal 

divests this [C]ourt of jurisdiction.” Brown v. Brown, 641 A.2d 610, 611 

(Pa.Super.1994).

Here, the prothonotary entered the trial court’s order denying 

Appellant’s Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Appeal and Nunc Pro Tunc Order 

Modification on the docket and provided Appellant with notice on February 

19, 2016. The thirtieth day thereafter was March 20, 2016, a Sunday. 

Accordingly, Appellant had until Monday March 21, 2016 to timely file his 

notice of appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 903; see also 1 Pa.C.S. § 1908 (“Whenever 

the last day of any such period shall fall on Saturday or Sunday, or on any 

day made a legal holiday by the laws of this Commonwealth or of the United 

States, such day shall be omitted from the computation”). Appellant filed 

his notice of appeal March 22, 2016, one day late. As a result, we lack 

jurisdiction over this appeal. See In re Greist, supra.

Appeal quashed.
J-S90032-16

- 5 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 12/2/2016