J-S56031-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

KATIE SNYDER 

Appellant

v.

AVA HUNT; ALESHIA GRIFFIN; ANNE 

MARIE SHOUR; RONALD SHOUR; 

JOHNSON THAIPARAMBIL; SHAINY 

THAIPARAMBIL; LEUDY CHECO; 

ANDREA CURIEL; GEORGE PORTER; 

MARY PORTER; JAY MARKOWITZ; 

EMMANUEL STOUPAKIS; SHARON L. 

AGATE; AND CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 60 EDA 2019

Appeal from the Order Entered December 3, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at 

No(s): 170300774

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., OLSON, J., and NICHOLS, J.

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 11, 2020

Appellant Katie Snyder appeals from the order denying her motion to 

remove nonsuit granted in favor Appellees Ava Hunt, Aleshia Griffin, Johnson 

Thaiparambil, Shainy Thaiparambil, Jay Markowitz, Emanuel Stoupakis, and 

Sharon Agate.1 Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion 

and committed errors of law by failing to remove the nonsuit. We quash.

____________________________________________

1 Regarding the additional parties named in the caption, the trial court granted 

a motion for directed verdict as to George Porter, Mary Porter, Leudy Checo, 

and Andrea Curiel. See N.T. Trial, 9/11/18, at 39. Appellant stipulated to the 

dismissal without prejudice of all claims against the City of Philadelphia. See

Stipulation, 9/13/18. Appellant entered into a settlement agreement with 
J-S56031-19

- 2 -

The relevant facts and procedural history of this appeal are as follows. 

Appellees are the owners and occupants of residential properties on the 6100 

block of Castor Avenue and the 1400 blocks of Benner and Lardner Streets in 

Philadelphia. These properties share a common driveway, which runs behind 

the homes on Castor Avenue and between the homes on Benner and Lardner 

Streets. 

On July 24, 2015, Appellant tripped and fell while walking across the

common driveway. On March 10, 2017, Appellant filed a negligence complaint 

against Appellees, alleging that (1) Appellees had a duty to maintain the 

driveway in a reasonably safe condition; (2) Appellees breached their duty by 

permitting a “hole/broken pavement” to develop; (3) Appellant suffered 

injuries as a result of her trip and fall; and (4) Appellees’ failure to maintain 

the driveway was the direct cause of Appellant’s injuries. See Compl., 

3/10/17, at ¶¶ 19-22. Appellant also filed suit against the City of Philadelphia. 

See id. at 15.

Appellees Ava Hunt, Aleshia Griffin, Jay Markowitz, Emanuel Stoupakis,

Sharon Agate, Ann Marie Shour, Johnson Thaiparambil, Shainy Thaiparambil, 

and the City of Philadelphia each filed cross-claims for indemnification and/or 

contribution against all other Appellees. 

____________________________________________

Anne Marie Shour. See N.T. Trial, 9/10/18, at 12. Ronald Shour died in 2014, 

before the events giving rise to Appellant’s complaint, and it is unclear from 

the record whether the trial court formally disposed of the claims against him. 

See id. at 13. 
J-S56031-19

- 3 -

Initially, an arbitration panel found in favor of all Appellees on November 

20, 2017. On December 4, 2017, Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the 

arbitrators’ award. See Pa.R.C.P. 1311. 

The matter proceeded to a jury trial on September 10, 2018. At trial, 

Appellant testified that she lived on the 1400 block of Lardner Street on July 

24, 2015. N.T. Trial, 9/10/18, at 97. On that date, Appellant walked down 

the common driveway to go to a corner store. Id. at 101. While attempting 

to avoid “one big crack” in the ground, Appellant stepped into a “hole behind 

the crack” and fell. Id. at 103. During Appellant’s testimony, her trial counsel 

displayed a photograph of the common driveway. Id. at 109. Appellant 

looked at the photograph and pointed to the area where the hole was 

“roughly” located. Id. at 110. 

Appellant also presented testimony from Robert Petralia, an expert in 

the field of land surveying. Mr. Petralia performed a survey of the area where 

Appellant fell, and he inspected the deeds for the properties on the 1400 

blocks of Benner and Lardner Streets and the 6100 block of Castor Avenue. 

Id. at 50-51. Mr. Petralia indicated that Appellant fell near “the rear of 6109 

Castor . . . just opposite 1414 Lardner Street.” Id. at 56. Based upon his 

review of the deeds, Mr. Petralia also opined that all of Appellees’ properties 

“have the common use and right to use that driveway.” Id. 

On cross-examination, however, Mr. Petralia testified that he did not 

bring all of Appellees’ deeds with him to trial. Id. at 61. Rather, the only 

deed Mr. Petralia brought to trial was the deed for 6101 Castor Avenue. Id.
J-S56031-19

- 4 -

at 62. Therefore, Mr. Petralia conceded that he could not testify about the 

specific language in any deed other than the deed for 6101 Castor Avenue. 

Id. 

At the conclusion of Appellant’s case-in-chief, counsel for Appellees 

Shainy and Johnson Thaiparambil moved for nonsuit. N.T. Trial, 9/11/18, at 

18. After receiving argument from counsel, the trial court granted the motion. 

Id. at 23. Thereafter, counsel raised the same motion for Appellees Ava Hunt, 

Aleshia Griffin, Emmanuel Stoupakis, and Sharon Agate. Id. at 24. Following 

additional argument, the trial court granted the motion. Id. at 30. Finally, 

counsel moved for nonsuit on behalf of Appellee Jay Markowitz, which the trial 

court also granted. Id. at 30, 38.2 On September 12, 2018, the parties signed 

a stipulation for dismissal of all claims against the City of Philadelphia.

Appellant filed a motion to remove nonsuit on September 17, 2018, and 

the trial court scheduled the matter for argument. Following argument, the 

parties submitted briefs in support of their positions. On December 3, 2018, 

the trial court denied Appellant’s motion to remove nonsuit. 

____________________________________________

2 The trial court memorialized its granting of the motions for nonsuit on a form 

labeled “Trial Work Sheet.” See Trial Work Sheet, 9/11/18. In the section 

titled “Full Description of Disposition (to be entered Verbatim on the Docket),” 

the trial court indicated that it granted Appellees’ motions for nonsuit. Id. 

Underneath this description, the form lists several other procedural 

circumstances that can occur at trial. Id. The trial court can place an “X” 

next to any of the circumstances that are relevant to the proceedings at issue. 

Id. Here, the trial court placed an “X” next to “Finding for Defendant (NonJury).” Id. The trial court did not place an “X” next to “Judgment entered.” 

Id. 
J-S56031-19

- 5 -

Appellant filed a notice of appeal on December 26, 2018. The trial court 

ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors 

complained of on appeal, which Appellant timely filed on January 25, 2019. 

The trial court filed a responsive opinion on April 1, 2019. In the opinion, the 

trial court concluded that nonsuit was proper because (1) there was no 

evidence that Appellee Shainy Thaiparambil’s property abutted the site of 

Appellant’s fall; (2) there was no evidence of Appellee Jay Markowitz’s liability, 

because Appellant did not enter his deed into evidence; and (3) regarding 

Appellees Ava Hunt, Aleshia Griffin, Emmanuel Stoupakis, and Sharon Agate, 

Appellant did not present any evidence to establish their relationship to the 

case. See Trial Ct. Op., 4/1/19, at 4. 

Appellant now raises three issues for our review: 

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and otherwise 

committed an error of law when it granted a nonsuit when 

Appellant established a prima facie case with evidence 

presented during trial? 

2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and otherwise 

committed an error of law by failing to remove the nonsuit 

when the errors were presented? 

3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion and otherwise 

committed an error of law by entering a nonsuit despite 

uncontested expert testimony presented during trial 

establishing ownership of the alleyway? 

Appellant’s Brief at 8.

In reviewing a trial court’s grant of nonsuit in favor of a defendant, we 

employ the following standard of review:
J-S56031-19

- 6 -

The plaintiff must be allowed the benefit of all favorable evidence 

and reasonable inferences arising therefrom, and any conflicts in 

the evidence must be resolved in favor of plaintiff. Further, it has 

been long settled that a compulsory nonsuit can only be granted 

in cases where it is clear that a cause of action has not been 

established. However where it is clear a cause of action has not 

been established, a compulsory nonsuit is proper. We must, 

therefore, review the evidence to determine whether the order 

entering judgment of compulsory nonsuit was proper.

Braun v. Target Corp., 983 A.2d 752, 764 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citation 

omitted).

Under Pennsylvania law, an appeal may be taken as of right from any 

final order of a lower court. Pa.R.A.P. 341. A “final order” is any order that: 

(1) disposes of all claims and of all parties; (2) is expressly defined as a final 

order by statute; or (3) is entered as a final order pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 

341(c).

When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, 

whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim 

or when multiple parties are involved, the trial court or other 

governmental unit may enter a final order as to one or more but 

fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express 

determination that an immediate appeal would facilitate resolution 

of the entire case.

Pa.R.A.P. 341(c). When such a determination is made under Rule 341(c), an 

order becomes appealable when entered. Id. In the absence of such a 

determination and entry of a final order, any order or other form of decision 

that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or parties shall not constitute a final 

order. Id.
J-S56031-19

- 7 -

Initially, we note that “a motion to remove nonsuit must be regarded as 

a ‘post-trial motion’ under the rules of civil procedure, thus placing a case that 

ended with entry of a nonsuit in the same procedural context as one that 

ended by verdict, i.e., one requiring the filing of a post-trial motion.” Billig 

v. Skvarla, 853 A.2d 1042, 1048 (Pa. Super. 2004). “[A]n order denying 

post-trial motions is interlocutory and generally not appealable.” Krishnan

v. Cutler Group, Inc., 171 A.3d 856, 862 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation 

omitted). 

“[I]n a case where nonsuit was entered, the appeal properly lies from 

the judgment entered after denial of a motion to remove nonsuit.” Billig, 

853 A.2d at 1048 (emphasis added). “The entry of judgment is a prerequisite 

to this Court’s exercise of jurisdiction.” Mrozek v. Eiter, 805 A.2d 535, 536 

n.1 (Pa. Super. 2002) (citation omitted).

Instantly, the trial court denied Appellant’s motion to remove nonsuit on 

December 3, 2018. No party filed a praecipe for entry of judgment, and the 

trial court did not enter judgment. Because the trial court has not entered 

judgment in this matter, the appeal is premature. See Billig, 853 A.2d at 

1048; Mrozek, 805 A.2d at 536 n.1.

Further, the record does not indicate that the trial court resolved all of 

Appellees’ cross-claims. See Pa.R.A.P. 341(c); see also Bollard & Assocs., 

Inc. v. PA Assocs., __ A.3d __, 2019 WL 6122809, *3 (Pa. Super. 2019) 

(reiterating that “[a] discontinuance of all of the plaintiff’s claims in an action 

does not discontinue counterclaims filed by a defendant” and stating that “this 
J-S56031-19

- 8 -

rule applies equally to cross-claims filed by a defendant against another 

defendant”). 

As indicated previously, Appellee Anne Marie Shour reached a 

settlement agreement with Appellant. See N.T., 9/10/18, at 12. However,

the record contains no resolution of the claims against Appellee Anne Marie 

Shour, nor is there any indication that the settlement agreement precluded 

her from pursuing her cross-claims for indemnity or contribution. See Bollard

at *3. Further, the record is unclear regarding the status of the remaining 

Appellees’ cross-claims. See id. at 7. Therefore, the parties and the trial 

court must resolve the status of all outstanding claims, including cross-claims 

and counterclaims, before Appellant can praecipe for entry of a final judgment. 

Accordingly, we must quash this appeal. 

Appeal quashed.

 President Judge Panella joins the memorandum.

Judge Olson concurs in the result.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 2/11/20