IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania :

:

v. : No. 1938 C.D. 2016

: Submitted: May 5, 2017

Alvin S. Kanofsky, :

Appellant :

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 14, 2017

Appellant Alvin S. Kanofsky (Kanofsky), pro se, appeals from sixteen

orders of the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County (trial court), dated 

August 24, 2016. Following a de novo hearing, the trial court found Kanofsky 

guilty of thirty-one summary criminal charges for violations of certain provisions 

of the International Property Maintenance Code (2009 ed.) (IPMC) and the 

Pennsylvania Uniform Construction Code (UCC),1both 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). In February 2016, Craig 

B. Hynes (Hynes), the City’s chief code official, issued thirty-one citations to 

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

in violation of Section 403.46 of the UCC3and fifteen for failure to repair the 

Property’s leaking roof in violation of Section 304.7 of the IPMC.4 

On April 5, 2016, after holding a summary trial, a Magisterial District Judge 

(MDJ) found Kanofsky guilty of all thirty-one violations, fined Kanofsky in the 

amount of $29,700, plus costs, and sentenced him to a period of imprisonment. 

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

trial court held a de novo hearing on August 24, 2016. At the hearing, the City5

presented the testimony of Hynes. Hynes explained that these proceedings are just 

 

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 304.7 of the IPMC provides: “Roofs and drainage. The roof and flashing shall 

be sound, tight and not have defects that admit rain. Roof drainage shall be adequate to prevent 

dampness or deterioration in the walls or interior portion of the structure. Roof drains, gutters 

and downspouts shall be maintained in good repair and free from obstructions. Roof water shall 

not be discharged in a manner that creates a public nuisance.” (Emphasis in original.)

On each of February 4-5, 8, 10-12, 16-19, and 22-26, 2016, Hynes 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 UCC and another for failure to repair the Property’s leaking roof in 

violation of Section 304.7 of the IPMC. On February 9, 2016, Hynes issued a citation to 

Kanofsky for failure to obtain a certificate of occupancy in violation of Section 403.46 of the 

UCC. 

5

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. 
3

another step in a lengthy process involving uncorrected violations at the Property. 

(Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 30-31.) Hynes stated that the City first informed 

Kanofsky about the subject violations in 2014. (Id. at 30-31.) Approximately two 

years later, after Kanofsky was given an opportunity to cure the violations, Hynes 

issued citations to Kanofsky and the parties appeared before a magisterial district 

judge. (Id. at 33, 35-36.) During those proceedings, the parties agreed to a

timeline for the completion of certain repairs to the Property. (Id. at 33, 36.) 

When the parties returned to the magisterial district judge, the majority of the

repairs had not been completed. (Id. at 33, 36.) The magisterial district judge 

found Kanofsky guilty, and Hynes informed Kanofsky that he would begin issuing 

daily citations for the violations. (Id. at 30, 33, 36.) Subsequent thereto, in 

February 2016, Hynes visited the Property on sixteen different dates and cited 

Kanofsky on each of those dates for failure to obtain a certificate of occupancy in 

violation of Section 403.46 of the UCC and for failure to repair the Property’s 

leaking roof in violation of Section 304.7 of the IPMC. (Id. at 33-35; Certified 

Record (C.R.), Ex. C-8.)

Hynes testified further that the Property is in a substantially 

deteriorated condition; the building’s roof has partially collapsed and water is 

leaking into the adjacent structure. (R.R. at 31, 35.) Hynes explained that on the 

third floor of the building one of the roof trusses has failed, the roof has collapsed 

in certain places, light is entering the building through the collapsed roof, ceiling 

material, insulation, and the failed truss litter the floor, and mold is growing on the 

walls. (Id. at 31.) Hynes also explained that water has entered the second floor of 

the building, causing a portion of the ceiling to deteriorate and fall, the wood floor 

to buckle, and a floor joist to deteriorate. (Id. at 31-32.) Hynes indicated that the 
4

Property’s leaking roof has persisted since 2007. (Id. at 32.) At that time, in order 

to prevent the water from destroying the building, Kanofsky had placed 

thirty-gallon trash barrels on the third floor to collect the water entering through 

the roof and then had pumped the water into the drainage or sanitary system using 

two small pumps. (Id.) 

Hynes also testified that as of the date of the hearing, none of the 

Property’s roof defects had been repaired. (Id. at 43.) When asked whether the 

Property’s current condition presents a danger to the public, Hynes stated that if 

the roof is not repaired, the entire building could collapse. (Id. at 35.) He 

explained that a heavy rain or snow could cause the roof to fail, and, if the roof 

fails, the walls could fall, the floors could pancake, and the entire building could 

collapse. (Id.) Hynes also stated that as a result of water pouring into the building 

on the south wall, the stucco has buckled, cracked, and separated approximately 

fourteen to eighteen inches away from the building and is in imminent danger of 

falling onto an adjacent, vacant property. (Id.) Hynes testified further that 

Kanofsky is also storing materials inside the building located on the Property. (Id.) 

Hynes explained that the storage of these items 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 32-33, 43.) 

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

his own behalf. Kanofsky stated that he had used the Property in prior years as a 

flea market, for a drama club, and for a music club, and that at those times, he had 

a certificate of occupancy for the Property. (Id. at 44-45.) Kanofsky stated further 

that at some point later, he decided to close the flea market and use the Property to 

store his research and personal items. (Id. at 45.) Kanofsky claimed that the City 
5

knew that he was using the Property for this purpose and had permitted it. (Id.) 

Nevertheless, Kanofsky admitted to the trial court that he did not have a certificate 

of occupancy for the Property. (Id. at 44.) Kanofsky also acknowledged receiving 

notices from the City in 2014, regarding violations at the Property. (Id. at 45.) 

Kanofsky claimed that he began to address these violations and had obtained 

estimates for the required work, but the contractors could not work on the exterior 

of the building during the winter months. (Id.) Nonetheless, 

on cross-examination, Kanofsky admitted that since the time that he had been 

notified of the violations at the Property, spring, summer, and fall of 2015, and 

spring and summer of 2016 had passed, and no work had been performed to correct 

the roof defects. (Id. at 46-47.) Kanofsky further admitted that since he had been 

found to have violated the Ordinance and had been convicted on previous citations, 

he had not done anything to correct the roof defects or obtain a certificate of 

occupancy for the Property. (Id. at 47.) 

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found Kanofsky guilty 

of all charges, fined him in the amount of $29,700, plus court costs, and sentenced 

him to five days of imprisonment.

6

 Kanofsky then appealed to this Court.

7

 

6

The trial court imposed the following fines against Kanofsky: (1) a $200 fine plus costs 

for Kanofsky’s February 4, 2016 offense of failure to obtain a certificate of occupancy in 

violation of Section 403.46 of the UCC; (2) a $1,000 fine plus costs for each of Kanofsky’s 

February 4-5, 8, 10-12, 16-19, and 22-26, 2016 offenses of failure to repair the Property’s 

leaking roof in violation of Section 304.7 of the IPMC; (3) a $500 fine plus costs for Kanofsky’s 

February 5, 2016 offense of failure to obtain a certificate of occupancy in violation of 

Section 403.46 of the UCC; and (4) a $1,000 fine plus costs for each of Kanofsky’s 

February 8-12, 16-19, and 22-26, 2016 offenses for failure to obtain a certificate of occupancy in 

violation of Section 403.46 of the UCC. 

At the conclusion of the August 24, 2016 hearing, the trial court also found Kanofsky 

guilty of another violation of Section 304.7 of the IPMC and fined Kanofsky in the amount of 

(Footnote continued on next page...)
6

On appeal,8 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.9 In response, the City argues that the trial court properly convicted 

Kanofsky of violating Section 304.7 of the IPMC and Section 403.46 of the UCC 

because the evidence supporting such convictions was overwhelming.

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 

 

(continued...)

$1,000, plus court costs at docket number SA-150-2016. Kanofsky appealed that conviction, and 

his appeal is currently pending before this Court at docket number 1955 C.D. 2016.

7 Kanofsky initially filed his appeal with the Pennsylvania Superior Court. By order 

dated October 11, 2016, the Superior Court transferred the matter to this Court, as this Court has 

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

C.S. § 762(a)(4).

8

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).

9

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. 
7

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 found Kanofsky guilty of sixteen summary 

criminal offenses for failure to obtain a certificate of occupancy for the Property in 

violation of Section 403.46 of the UCC and fifteen summary criminal offenses for 

failure to repair the Property’s leaking roof in violation of Section 304.7 of the 

IPMC. Although the trial court did not set forth its credibility determinations in 

writing,10 we can infer that the trial court found Hynes’s testimony to be credible 

and Kanofsky’s testimony to be not credible. Hynes’s credible testimony supports 

the trial court’s conclusions in this matter.11 By arguing 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, Kanofsky is essentially asking this Court to adopt his preferred 

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

 

10 In its 1925(a) opinion, the trial court indicated that it was relying on the record and that 

no further statement was necessary. (Trial Ct. Op., dated Sept. 29, 2016.) 

11 Our review of the record further reveals that the trial court rejected some of the 

testimony and documents upon which Kanofsky attempts to rely in support of his arguments as 

irrelevant upon the City’s objection. 
8

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. 1938 C.D. 2016

:

Alvin S. Kanofsky, :

Appellant :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 14th day of August, 2017, the orders of the Court of 

Common Pleas of Northampton County are hereby AFFIRMED.

 

 P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge