Court Opinion

ID: 9384952
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-05 17:07:29.970318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:57.851394
License: Public Domain

J-A06027-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    KENNETH A. SENOSKI                         :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellant               :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    RICHARD J. JOYCE, ESQ. AND                 :   No. 726 WDA 2022
    ANTHONY M. BITTNER, ESQ.                   :

                  Appeal from the Order Entered June 2, 2022
       In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at
                            No(s): GD-20-000049

BEFORE:      OLSON, J., NICHOLS, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY NICHOLS, J.:                           FILED: April 5, 2023

        Appellant Kenneth A. Senoski appeals pro se from the order sustaining

the preliminary objections filed by Appellees Richard J. Joyce, Esq. and

Anthony M. Bittner, Esq., and dismissing Appellant’s complaint with prejudice.

For the following reasons, we dismiss the appeal.

        The underlying facts and procedural history are well known to the

parties.    See Trial Ct. Op., 8/23/22, at 1-10.        Briefly, Appellant filed a

complaint for legal malpractice against Appellees on January 3, 2020.

Appellees subsequently filed preliminary objections alleging that Appellant had

failed to effectuate proper service of the complaint. Following a hearing on

June 1, 2022, the trial court sustained Appellees’ preliminary objections and

dismissed Appellant’s complaint for improper service. See Trial Ct. Order,
____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A06027-23

6/2/22. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and the trial court issued a

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion stating the basis for its decision.

       On appeal, Appellant has filed a brief in which he argues that the trial

court erred in dismissing his complaint because there was no order directing

Appellant to comply with Pa.R.Civ.P. 400(a) or to serve Appellees.           See

Appellant’s Brief at 1-2.1

       Before addressing Appellant’s claim, we must consider whether

Appellant complied with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure. This

issue is a pure question of law for which “our scope of review is plenary[,] and

the standard of review is de novo.” Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d

969, 974 (Pa. 2018), overruled on other grounds by Commonwealth v.

Young, 265 A.3d 462 (Pa. 2021). It is well settled that appellate briefs must

conform to the requirements set forth in the appellate rules. In re Ullman,

995 A.2d 1207, 1211 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citations omitted). Further, if the

defects in an appellant’s brief “are substantial, the appeal or other matter may

be quashed or dismissed.” Pa.R.A.P. 2101.

       The Rules set forth specific requirements for the required content of an

appellate brief.    See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a).       Among other things, briefs must

contain a statement of jurisdiction, statement of both the scope of review and

____________________________________________

1 We note that although the cover page of Appellant’s brief states that it is an
“application for relief,” the first page of the brief is labeled as “Appellant[’s]
Brief.” See Appellant’s Brief at 1 (formatting altered). To resolve this
discrepancy, the Prothonotary’s office contacted Appellant and confirmed that
this document is his appellate brief, not an application for relief.

                                           -2-
J-A06027-23

the standard of review, statement of the questions involved, statement of the

case, summary of argument, argument section, and a short conclusion stating

the precise relief sought. See id.

       Further, this Court has explained that an appellant’s pro se status does

not relieve them of their duty to comply with our Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Jiricko v. Geico Ins. Co., 947 A.2d 206, 213 n.11 (Pa. Super. 2008).

“Although this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro se

litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon the appellant.” Ullman,

995 A.2d at 1211-12 (citations omitted). “This Court will not act as counsel

and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant.” U.S. Bank, N.A.

v. Pautenis, 118 A.3d 386, 394 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citations omitted).

       Here, Appellant has filed a two-page brief in which he raises a

generalized claim that the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint.

Appellant’s Brief at 1-2. However, although Appellant attached the trial court’s

order and opinion to his brief, Appellant has otherwise failed to meet any of

the requirements for an appellate brief. See Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(1), (3)-(6),

(8)-(9). Further, Appellant has failed to develop his claim in any meaningful

fashion or provide any basis for why this Court should reverse the trial court’s

order.2 See Pautenis, 118 A.3d at 394.

____________________________________________

2We note that Appellant also filed a reply brief in which he likewise failed to
develop any meaningful argument in support of his claim. See Appellant’s
Reply Brief.

                                           -3-
J-A06027-23

        Under these circumstances, and given the substantial defects in

Appellant’s brief, we are unable to conduct a meaningful review of Appellant’s

claim. Accordingly, we are constrained to dismiss this appeal. See Pa.R.A.P.

2101; Ullman, 995 A.2d at 1211-12.3

        Appeal dismissed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date:    4/5/2023

____________________________________________

3 In any event, even if we were to address whether the trial court erred in
dismissing Appellant’s complaint, we would affirm on the basis of the trial
court’s opinion. See Trial Ct. Op. at 1-10.

                                           -4-