IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

City of Bethlehem :

:

v. : No. 1034 C.D. 2017 : Submitted: December 22 , 2017 Alvin S. Kanofsky, : United States of America :

: Appeal of: Alvin S. Kanofsky :

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge HONORABLE J. WESLEY OLER, JR., Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY PRESIDENT JUDGE LEAVITT FILED: March 23 , 2018

Alvin S. Kanofsky, pro se , appeals the June 29, 2017, order of the Court

of Common Pleas of Northampton County (trial court) granting an application by

the City of Bethlehem , as conservator of property owned by Kanofsky, to sell the

property to Collaboration 3, LLC (Developer). Kanofsky conte nds that the trial

court erred in ap proving the sale because the value of the p roperty was greater than

the approved sale price. We affirm.

This case involves the City’s continued efforts to address the

deteriorated condition of two parcels of property at 30 East Third Street and 32 East

Third Street (collectively, the Property) in Bethlehem

. 1 Kanofsky is the owner of

1 This effort has been the subject of prior litigation. See, e.g., City of Bethlehem v. Kanofsky

, 175 A.3d 467 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017), reconsideration denied (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) ( affirming appointment of the City as conservator for the Property); Commonwealth v. Kanofsky , (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1955 C.D. 2016, filed August 14, 201 7) (involving a summary criminal charge for a violation of the City’s codified ordinances); Commonwealth v. Kanofsky , (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1938 C.D. 2016, filed August 14, 2017) (involving summary criminal charges for violations of City’s codified ordinances relating to maintenance of the b uilding and failure to obtain certificate of occupancy);2

the Property , which is comprised of a three

- story, L

- shaped building with a vacant

lot inside the L

.

In 2016, the City petition ed the trial court to appoint the City as

conservator of the Property pursuant to the Abandoned and Blighted Property

Conservatorship Act. 2 On January 13, 2017, the trial court granted the City’s

petition and appointed the City as conservator. Kanofsky appealed

, and on

November 29, 2017, this Court affirmed the trial court. See City of Bethlehem, 175

A.3d at 4 7 7.

I n April 2017, pursuant to its conservatorship, the City filed a Proposed

Final Plan for Abatement of the Property (Abatement Pla n) pursuant to Section

6(c)(1) of the Abandoned and Blighted Property Conservatorship Act, 68 P.S.

§11 06(c)(1) . The Abatement Plan called for the sale of the Property to Developer.

At a hearing on May 8, 2017, Developer proposed to purchase the Property for

$130,000, which exceeded the $117,000 appraised value of the Property. Certified

Record (C.R.)

, Item No. 4 at 2, ¶ ¶ 6

- 7

. Developer planned to rehabilitate the Property

and create commercial space on the ground level for three tenants as well as a bus

concourse. On t he second and third levels of the building , Developer planned

residential space for 14 apartments

. On May 12, 2017, following a hearing, the trial

court approved the Abatement Plan and directed the City to take all necessary

Commonwealth v. Kanofsky , (Pa. Cmwlth., Nos. 1523 C.D. 2016, 1524 C.D. 2016, and 1525 C.D. 2016, filed August 11, 2017) (involving four summary criminal charges for vi olations of the City’s codified ordinances); Kanofsky v. City of Bethlehem

, (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1503 C.D. 2016, filed May 17, 2017) ( quashing appeal of blight certification); Kanofsky v. City of Bethlehem , (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 598 C.D. 2016, filed December 6, 2 016) (involving a violation of the City’s codified
ordi nances related to maintenance of the b uilding on the Property ); Kanofsky v. City of Bethlehem

, (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 2163 C.D. 2015, filed Sept ember 28, 2016) (involving violations of City’s
codified ordinances relating to maintenance of the b uilding and failure to obtain certificate of occupancy).

2 Act of November 26, 2008, P.L. 1672, as amended , 68 P.S. §§1101

- 1111.3

measures to im

plement the plan. Trial C ourt O rder, 5/12/2017, at 1

. On June 12,

2017, the City filed an a pplication to s ell the P roperty to D eveloper , and the trial

court scheduled a hearing on the sale for June 29, 2017

.

At the hearing, counsel for the City, Mat thew Deschler, informed the

trial court that all interested parties had been served. Deschler requested that

settlement occur in 90 days. In opposition to the City’s a pplicatio n to sell the

Property to Developer, Kanofsky testified as follows :

Mr. Kanofsky: Your honor, as I stated before with the

previous appearance in court, I question the appraisal value and the amount that would be available for proceeds, you know, to pay off all the creditors.

The Court: Do you have any counter evidence with

re gard to value, then?

Mr. Kanofsky: I’m accumulating that at the present time. So

I’m in contact with various appraisers. I expect that I could have that, you know, before the proposed date of the settlement.

The Court: Well, today’s the date for the hea ring, so it

would have to have been today. Today is the date to present evidence.

* * *

Mr. Kanofsky: Well, I would say the only firm figures I have

is an appraisal from back in ’96 that was made. That’s one piece. And, of course, that came out higher t han what the people here with Attorney Deschler and his group are claiming.

* * *

The Court: ...This is the amount that I approved with the

plan, though, isn’t it, Mr. Deschler?4 Mr. Deschler: It is. And we have assigned values to each

parcel, but in aggreg ate the purchase price is $130,000, which is significantly more than the combined appraised value of the two parcels, which is only $113,000.

The Court: What is the date of the hearing that I

approved the plan?

Mr. Deschler: May 8 th , I believe.

The Court: Has an appeal been taken from that order?

Mr. Deschler: Not from that order, judge.

The Court: Okay. So other than that, do you have

anything else to present today, then, Mr. Kanofsky ?

Mr. Kanofsky: Well, also, as you know, we have the

conservatorship appealed. So that’s up in the Commonwealth Court. And also, if we appeal the blight.

N otes of T estimony (N.T.) , 6/29/2017, at 5

- 7; C.R. Item No. 9 at 5

- 7.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court granted the City’s

application and authorized the City to convey title to the Prop erty to Developer for

$130,000. Trial C ourt O rder, 6/29/2017, at 1; C.R. Item No. 6 at 1. This appeal

followed. 3

On appeal, i n the “Questions Asked” and “Further Questions” sections

of his brief, Kanofsky raises 26 issues

. Most of Kanofsky’s issues involve matters

that are irrelevant, unsupported by the record, not developed in his brief, or waived

3 This Court’s review determines whether the trial court abused its discre tion or committed an error of law necessary to the outcome of the case. City of Bethlehem , 175 A.3d at 475 n.8 (quoting In re Conservatorship Proceeding In Rem by Germantown Conservancy, Inc. , 995 A.2d 451, 459 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010)).5

because they were not raised before the trial court. 4 Those issues are not properly

before this Court and will not be addres sed. The o nly relevant issue that Kanofsky

4 Specifically, K anofsky states : (1) “Was Kanofsky conscientiously maintain [sic] building over the years?”; (2) “ Did Kanofsky have a certificate of occupancy?”; (3) “Were there conflicting testimonies in the lower Committee hearings and in the Common Pleas Courts?”; (4) “ Were there problems in the service of the Court Reporter, Lori Peck, on orders given to her by Judge Giordano, which delayed delivery of the transcript to Kanofsky?”; (5) Did [Kanofsky] ’s neighbor, Mr. John Saraceno, give false, libelous, perjured testimon y in lower committee and courts?”; (6) “Should the City of Bethlehem be held responsible for damage to the building?”; (7) “Was the City of Bethlehem conspiring with the neighbor, John Saraceno, the developer, Dennis Benner and other
local entities to ille gally force Kanofsky to give up possession of the building?”; (8) “Is there a conflict of interest with Judge Giordano handling the case since he is a lo n gtime friend of John Saraceno who has made false, perjured, and libelous statements about Kanofsky in court?”; (9)

“ Was the bidding on the Abatement Project not open?”; (10) “Is the City really conservator and developer combined?”; (11) “Was the building r oof not sealed due to limited funds provided from the state?”; (12) “Did consequent Roof leakage cause more damage to the building?”; (13) “Did Certified Appraisers [] testify in cour t?”; (14) “ Were the supposed appraisals extremely low, thus
short

- changin g the Creditors?”; (15) “Do outside appraisers all say that the appraisal amounts would be easily [be] double or triple do to the massive development of the parking garage and the Lehigh and St. Luke’s development offices 200 feet away from the building?”; (16) “Is everything under appeal

– the so called blighted building and the so called blighted lot?”; (17) “Is the conservatorship under appeal as well?”; (18) “Was illegal entry used by the [C] ity when[] Mr. Tony Hanna, Head of the Redevelopment Authority forced open the door to the building in July?”; (19) “Earlier, did the [C] ity cause major damage to the building with their [sic] massive front Loader hitting the building wall after the 2016 January 22 record breaking 32 inch snowfall, while trespassing on [Kanofsky] ’s lot, causing collapse of the roof, breakage to the stucco siding, and a crack in the front window?”; (20) “Does the recent court appearance on July 17 with case CV

2016

- 3486 before Judge Samuel Murray concerning the cracked front window cau sed by the front loader further support the city causing major damage to the building?”; (21) “Was it shorting [sic]
after the snowfall that the [C] ity began to issue violations and citations on the cracked front window, and the case finally before [J]udge Murray, despite numerous attempts by the [C] ity to delay a trial hearing through continuances, and even ignoring the initial hearing and appeal on it.”; (22) “Are the numerous citations and consequent convictions and fines for lack of a certificate of

occ upancy and roof repair invalid?”; (23) “Had the [C] ity earlier allowed [Kanofsky] occupancy for his personal items, as can be easily confirmed?”; (24) “Was the roof repair the responsibility
of the [C] ity which cause d major damage to the roof, due to the f ront loader hitting the wall of the building?”; (25) “Did the court notify [Kanofsky] of the Hearing before Judge Giordano when the Building was declared blighted?”; and (26) “Does Hon. Judge Beltrami have a conflict of interest with being lifelong friend of John Conahan (at U.S. Post Office Main branch) as verified by high school yearbook [?] ” Kanofsky’s Brief at 3

- 5.6

has preserved for appeal relates to the sale price of the Property. Specifically,

Kanofsky contends that the value of the Property is greater than the sale price

approve d by the trial court. In response, the Ci ty states that Kanofsky has never

presented an appraisal or demonstrated why the appraisal obtained by the City was

incorrect. The City contends that the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion

when it authorized the sale of the Property to Developer

.

Section 9(b) of the Abandoned and Blighted Property Conservatorship

Act sets forth the prerequisites for the sale of property under conservatorship. It

states:

Upon application of the conservator, the court may order the sal e

of the property if the court finds that:

(1) Notice and opportunity to provide comment to the court was given to each record owner of the property and each lienholder.

(2) The conservator has been in control of the building for more than three months and the own er has not successfully petitioned to terminate the conservatorship under section 10[, 68 P.S. §1110].

(3) The terms and conditions of the sale are acceptable to the court, and the buyer has a reasonable likelihood of maintaining the property.

68 P.S. §1109(b)

.

Beginning with the notice requirement in subsection (1), the City filed

certificates of service showing that it served Kanofsky and each lienholder with

copies of the trial court’s May 12, 2017, order , which set the date and time of the

hearing

, and the City’s a pplication to sell the Property to Developer

. Kanofsky had

the opportunity to present evidence in opposition to the City’s a pplication at the trial

court’s hearing on June 29, 2017. Finally, Kanofsky has not disputed service of the7

notice of the hearing or the a pplication. The record shows that the first prerequisite

in Section 9(b) of the Abandoned and Blighted Property Conservatorship Act was

satisfied.

T he second pre requisite of Section 9(b) required the conservator to

have been in control of the building for over three months. The trial court appointed

the City as conservator of the Property on January 13, 2017. The City remained in

control of the Property as conservator for more than three months when, in May

2016, it petitioned the trial court for approval of the Abatement Plan for the Property.

At no point did Kanofsky petition to terminate the conservatorship, and he does not

contend otherwise. Accordingly, the record shows that the second prerequisite was

satisfied

.
Th e third and final prerequisite of Section 9(b) require s that the terms

and conditions of the sale be acceptable to the court and that the buyer have a

reasonable likelihood of maintaining the property. Prior to submitting its Abatement

Plan, the City’s Department of Community and Ec onomic Development published

a request for proposals from developers interested in rehabilitati ng and improving

the Property. The City r eceived a number of proposals and selected Developer’s

proposal after d etermining that it was “best suited to rehabilitate the [Property] so as

to secure [its] structural integrity and satisfy and advance the economic, cultural, and

social needs and benefits of the ... community.” C.R. Item No. 1 at 2, ¶8. When

the City filed the Abatement Plan, it included a copy of Developer’s final

development p lan. That f inal p lan included: a description of the work that

Developer proposed to undertake to rehabilitate the building, including remediating

the existing building violations; a plan to renovat e the interior of the building

, including the creation of both commercial and residential space; the construction8

costs and timelines; a background o n Developer’s firm s ; and Developer’s financial

capacity to execute the project, including letters from three financial institutions

agreeing to provide financing for the project

. C.R. Item No. 1, Exhibit A. Given the

appraised value of the Property established in the records and the details of

Developer’s pl an to rehabilitate the Property , t he record shows that the third

prerequisite was satisfied

.

In summary, we conclude that the trial court did not err in holding that

t he requirements in Section 9(b) of the Abandoned and Blighted Property

Conservatorship Act were satisfied. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not

abuse its discretion or err in granting the City’s a pplication to sell the Property to

Developer

. 5

For these reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order.

______________________ ________________ MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge

5 Kanofsky also argues that the trial court erred in approving the sale because the value of the Property was higher than the sale price. K anofsky did not present any evidence to support his argument, so we need not consider it further.IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

City of Bethlehem :

:

v. : No. 1034 C.D. 2017

: Alvin S. Kanofsky, : United States of America :

: Appeal of: Alvin S. Kanofsky :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 23 rd day of March , 2018, the June 29, 2017, order of

the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County in the above

- captioned matter

is AFFIRMED.

______________________________________ MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge